Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook Vol.2


AIR PROGRAMS POLICY
and G flDANCE NOTEBOOK
Volume 2
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Orf ice of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
cLgt,oa , \ inocct
/4
- b LC Ic1 A 4 % 1 L ,&a & ,4, 4C&
Ac t ac
ASJ
16 a ) ,dc6 - ,twa e
— I __________
r ’ - ” - —
I
£3 cL tJgLe . / , - 2 4 &t /J JtQ . 4
4w L
#1 aAt , CCct s’-
________ ____ _____ ____ ‘ WESTIN
HOTEIS & RESORTS
/ 4’
,Lr ta v

pu 1 iJ 5 ce -en et —
westin corn

-------
ACTION ITEMS
ChilLer-Free Meenr sg!ve
you back yourspace
AU Lhc supplies you need
have been organized in a
strealnt2ned serif ng

-------
Xn -rod c h )

-------
AIR P RANS L 1 ICY AND JIDANCE NCIIThOOK
Introduction
The Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook is a collection of
previously-distributed material which can be used as a convenient
reference document for anyone who is involved in the development and
i l ntation of air pollution control prograits. The material is
ox anized acoordir to sections of the Clean Air Act and is cross-indexed
by subject.
The documents in each section have been assigned code numbers
related to the respective section of the Clean Air Act, the date of
issuance of the doc .m nt, and a number denoting the order or location of
the document in each section of the Notebook. For example, a do nent
coded 172—80—06—16—027 would indicate:
policy flotebook
Section 172 of the Clean Air Act
80—06—16 June 16, 1980 — date of initial, distribution of
the doa nt
027 - 27th it n incln ed in the Section 172 portion of
the Notebook
1 c’..nnents within each section are arranged such that the n st
current documents generally appear at the front of any given section. To
aooon lish this, the documents should be placed in each section so that
the last three digits of the code ni nuber are in descending order.
The subject index in the Notebook lists code numbers for all
documents relating to the individual subject. For example, economic
feasibility has two documents listed: I 110—86—04—11—074 and 110—87—
01—20-080. This indicates that both doc’..m ents can be found in the
Section 110 chapter of the Notebook. They can readily be located in the
book using the code information as explained above.
Users of the Policy and Guidance Notebook should be aware that it
does not necessarily contain all of EPA’s policy and guidance related to
a given topic. It is a compilation of policy and guidance doc m nts but
the users cannot rely only upon the Notebook for all of their needs.
Users should be aware of other policy c ilations which might be useful.
One such cc ilation is the Clean Air Act C 1iance/ forc ent Manual -
- Compendiinn of Operative Policies , which is maintained by EPA’s Office
of forcement and C mp1iance Monitoring. Another con ilation is the
Source Review - Prevention of Siqnificant Deterioration and Nonattaimnent
Area Guidance Notebook , which is also published by EPA’s Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.

-------
Distribution of the Notebook is to EPA P ional Offices az to
officials of State ai local agencies. Recipients of the Notebook will
receive periodic updates. For additional information relat 1 to the
Notebook please call Bill Hamilton, Office of Air Quality Plannir ar
Standards, at FrS 629—5498 or 919—541—5498.

-------
7 -sJr..s

-------
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 2
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT INDEX
CM SECTION TITLE
107 Air Quality Control Regions
110 Implementation Plans
111(e) New Source Performance Standards Enforcement
112 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
113 Federal Enforcement
114 Inspections, Monitoring, and Entry
123 Stack Heights
126 Interstate Pollution Abatement
165 Preconstructjon Requirements
167 PSD Enforcement
169A Visibility Protection
172 Nonattainnient Plan Provisions

-------
Page No. I
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN1O7-86-04-11-012
REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED
AREAS
** PN1O7-87-04-06-013
OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
** PNJO7-88-04-05-014
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY ON REDESIGNATION OF 2 INDIANA COUNTIES
** PN11O-86-03-28-073
BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING S02 NAAQS
** PN1IO-86-04-11-074
RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
** PNJIO-86-05-23-075
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY FROM CRAIG POTTER ON THE INDIANA S02 SIP
** PN1IO-86-08-07-076
POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR
VOC SOURCES
** PN1IO-86-12-04-077
EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATEMENT (CITATION)
** PN1IO-86-12-1O-078
RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S) FOR S02
** PN11O-87-Ol-08-079
CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
** PN1IO-87-O1-20-080
DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
** PNJ1O-87-04-17-081
DEFINITION OF VOC
** PN1IO-87-04-30-082
AMBIENT AIR
** PN1IO-87-04-30-083
AMBIENT AIR

-------
Page No. 2
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN11O-87-07-29-084
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE
** PN11O-87-08-11-085
PROCESSING OF PARTICULATE MATTER STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
REVISIONS
** PN1IO-87-09-21-086
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
** PN11O-87-05-11-088
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION
AND AIR QUALITY DATA
** PN11O-87-07-21-089
DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC ’s)
** PN11O-87-08-11-090
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PM1O STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’s)
** PN11O-87-1O-02-091
CLARIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES FOR PM1O NATIONAL AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
** PN11O-87-12-23-092
EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
** PN11O-88-O3-18-093
POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
** PN11O-88-06-17-094
DEMONSTRATION OF “REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS” FOR USE IN
“EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE” DETERMINATIONS
** PN11O-88-06-27-095
“GRANDFATHERING ” OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
** PN11O-88-08-05-096
IDENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
** PN11O-88-09-06-097
PM1O SIP DEVELOPMENT: STATUS AND CONCERNS
** PN11O-88-11-04-098
GUIDANCE ON LONG-TERM NONATTAINMENT OF THE PM1O STANDARDS

-------
Page No. 3
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PNI1O-88-11-21-099
REVISION TO POLICY ON THE USE OF PM1O MEASUREMENT DATA
** PN11O-89-O1-19-100
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPLETENESS REVIEW (FR CITATION)
** PN11O-89-O1-19-1O1
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROCESSING REFORM (FR CITATION)
** PN11O-89-O1-30-102
PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
** PN11O-89-06-30-103
RESPONSE TO PM1O CONTROL STRATEGY ISSUES
** PN111E-86-09-11-004
DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY
TO STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
** PN1I2-86-1O-O1-009
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS
MANUFACTURING PLANTS
** PN112-88-03-31-01O
REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
** PN113-86-O1-17-027
ISSUES #3(E) AND #5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS:
ESTABLISHING PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN
CONSENT DECREES RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN113-86-04-11-028
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
** PN113-86-04-11-029
GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR
OURCES
** PN113-86-04-22-030
TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT
APPLICATIONS OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA

-------
Page No. 4
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN113-86-06-02-031
113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
** PN113-86-08-07-032
POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN
CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
** PN113-86-08-22-033
SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO’S
** PN113-87-O1-09-034
LETTER TO TOM BISPHRAM ON CDS DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
** PN113-87-03-25-035
REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
** PN113-87-05-27-036
REACTIVATION OF NOR.ANDA LAKESHORE MINES’ RLA PLANT AND PSO REVIEW
** PN113-87-06-25-037
PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)
REVISIONS
** PN113-87-07-06-038
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
** PN113-87-09-11-040
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
** PN113-87-09-23-041
REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR
ENFORCEABILITY AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
** PN113-87-11-23-042
SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
AGAINST STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE
APPLICABLE ATTAINMENT DATE
** PN113-87-12-31-043
GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
** PN113-87-1O-08-044
POLICY ON CORRECTING THE CONDITION GIVING RISE TO LISTING UNDER
THE CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM

-------
Page No. 5
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PNJ13-88-03-02-045
REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY
POLICY
** PN113-88-03-11-046
LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO
SECTION 306 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN113-88-03.-31-047
TRANSMITTAL OF OAQPS INTERIM CONTROL POLICY STATEMENT
** PNI13-88-03-31-048
TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CEMS POLICY
** PN113-88-03-31-049
IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES
** PNI13-88-06-30-O5O
.ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
** PN113-88-07-05-051
TRANSMITTAL OF S02 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
** PN114-88-03-31-006
COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR FY 89
** PN123-86-02-11-011
PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
** PN123-86-02-1I-012
CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTS WITH “TALL STACKS” AND OTHER PROHIBITED
DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
** PN123-87-09-03-013
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
** PN123-87-1O-09-O14
PROCESSING OF STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
** PN123-88-O1-07-015
STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (FR
CITATION)

-------
Page No. 6
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN123-88-05-17-016
APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY
ACTIONS
** PN123-89-04-20-017
LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. EMISON
** PN126-89-Ol-11-005
LETTER TO THOMAS JORLING REGARDING INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION
CRITERIA
** PN165-86-11-24-016
NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZIMMER POWER PLANT
** PN165-87-02-27-017
PLANTWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
** PN165-87-04-08-018
CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
** PN165-87-04-22-019
HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
** PN165-87-06-26-020
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
** PN165-87-09-22-021
IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
** PN165-87-12-O1-022
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
** PN165-85-06-28-023
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
** PN165-86-07-07-024
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSO) DEFINITION OF
t ’MODIFICATION”
** PN16S-86-1O-21-025
APPLICABILITY OF PSD TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES
WITHOUT PERMITS

-------
Page No. 7
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN165-86-12-O1-026
NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
** PN165-87-O1-29-027
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
** PN165-87-08-05-028
IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PSD) PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
** PN165-87-IO-O6-029
EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
** PN165-88-04-25-030
IAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
** PN165-88-06-07-031
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PSO) APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
** PN165-88-07-05-032
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PS 0)
** PN165-88-07-28-O33
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION
OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
** PN165-88-08-29-034
TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY IN DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION
RATE (LAER)
** PN165-88-09-09-035
APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) AND
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC
POWER COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
*4 PN165-88-1O-14-036
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
** PNI6S-89-02-15-037
GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE
(N02) INCREMENTS PROGRAM

-------
Page No. 8
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN165-89-02-28-038
GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)
** PN165-89-03-16-039
USE OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FOR NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS (NAAQS) IMPACT ANALYSES UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
** PN165-89-03-31-04O
APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSD) PERMIT ANALYSES
** PN165-89-04-1O-041
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P50) APPLICABILITY TO
SULFUR DIOXIDE (502) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED
SULFUR (IRS) COMPOUNDS
** PN167-88-03-29-002
OPINION IN U.S. V . LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
** PN167-88-07-15-003
PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
** PN169A-86-11-1O-002
VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(SIP’S)--VISIBILITY SIP’S PART II
** PN172-86-02-28-052
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
** PN172-86-1O-30-053
INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
** PN172-87-06-25-054
EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUND SOURCES
** PN172-87-09-09-055
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
** PN172-86-O1-O9-057
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY
POLYETHYLENE, POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE

-------
Page No. 9
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
** PN172-86-09-29-058
SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
** P11172-87-09-11-059
GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
** PN172-87-12-1O-060
LETTER TO LEONARD LEOBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL
EMISSIONS FOR VOC REGULATIONS
** PN172-88-05-27-061
TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
** PN172-88-06-21-062
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
** PN172-88-08-23-063
LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
** PN172-88-09-07-064
AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION 110
OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT (FR CITATION)
** PN172-88-11-04-065
EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
** PN172-88-12-O1-066
R.ACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
** P11172-88-12-16-067
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
** PN172-88-11-04-068
EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
** PN172-89-O1-27-069
TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR
POST-1987 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL
AREAS
** PN172-89-02-15-070
MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL

-------
Page No: 10
09/01/89
ATTACHMENT 2
COMPLETE LISTING OF THE CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2
OF THE AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
(SEPTEMBER 1989)
PN172-89-03-16-071
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC’s)
** PN172-89-04-03-072
APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
** PN172-89-04-07-073
BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
** PN172-89-05-03-074
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE NAAQS
* PN172-89-05-25-O75
CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
** PN172-89-O7-06-076
AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(SIP’S)

-------

-------
Page No. 1
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
‘ 100 TPY SOURCES
PN165-87-1O -06-029 VOLUME 2 EMISSIONS FROR LANDFILLS
PN172-84-06-25- 047 VOLUME I
PN 172 -84-12-21- 049 VOLUME I
PN 172-86 -1O-3O -053 VOLUME 2
** 1983 AIR QUALITY DATA
PM 107-85-04-08-009
** 30-DAY AVERAGING
PN1 10-86-OS-23075
‘ ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PHi 13-78-07-27-005
‘ AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
PHi 72-89-07-06-076
‘ AFTERBURNERS
PN165-85-06-28-023 VOLUME 2
PN172-80-12-O1 - 033 VOLUME 1
PN1?2-86-02-28-052 VOLUME 2
** AIR QUALITY MOOELING
PN1O7-83- 04-21-OO8 VOLUME I
PNI1Q-85-OI-02-07O VOLUME I
PN11O -8T- 04-30-082 VOLUME 2
PN I IO-87-04-30- 083 VOLUME. 2
PN11 O -87- 09-21- 086 VOLUME 2
PN1IO-87-O5-1i-088 VOLUME 2
PN123-85-i0-I0-0 07 VOLUME 1
PN 165-84-OI-20-013 VOLUME 1
PH165-87-01-29-027 VOLUME 2
PHi 65-89-03-31-040
PN172-78-03-I0-0O2
PN172-81 -01-22-039
DOCUMENT
NOTEBOOK
DOCUIIENT
NUMBER
VOLUME
SUBJECT
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 IPY) SOURCE”
CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC C34POUND (VOC) ISSUES
INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
VOLUME I LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FRON GERALD A. EMISON
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY FRON CRAIG POTTER ON THE INDIANA 502 SIP
VOLUME I ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(0)
VOLUME 2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S)
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY 51J9 ART
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF M ELING GUIDANCE
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
QUESTIONS AND ANSVERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
PSO INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MCOELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSO)
VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNUASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (P50) PERMIT ANALYSES
VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
.VOLUME 2 IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE NAAQS
PN172-89-O5-03-074

-------
Page Mo. 2
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
** AIR QUALITY MONITORING
PNIO7-86- 04-11-012 VOLUME 2 REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDCSIGJJATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
PNIIO-79-11-21-023 VOI.L 1E 1 NINI NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRATION
Pw11O-83-03•18 -063 VOLUME I LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
PN11O-83-O5-27 064 VOLUME I SUMMARY OF MAAQS INTERPRETATION
PN11O -8705-l1-088 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON ACCGUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
PN11O-88-1I-21-099 VOLUME 2 REVISION TO POLICT ON THE USE OF PM1O MEASUREMENT DATA
PN172-81-O5-21-038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
PN I72-81-O1-22-039 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
** AIR TONICS STRATEGY
PN112-85- 06 -u-OO7 VOLUME 1 REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TONICS STRATEGY CREFERENCE ONLY)
‘ AMBIENT AIR
PN11O-83-03-18-O63 VOLUME I LETTER TO HARRY N. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
PNIIO-83-05-26• 068 VOLUME I DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
PN11O8T- 04-30-O8 2 VOLUME 2 AMBIENT AIR
PNI1O-87-04-3O- 083 VOLUME 2 AMBIENT AIR
PNI1O-87- 09-21-086 VOLUME 2 AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
PN123-80-12-19-OO1 VOLUME I LETTER TO HONORABLE JENNINGS RANDOLPH FRON OGUGLAS N. COSTLE REGARDING
DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR
PN165-84•06-ll-O14 VOLUME I APPLICABILITY OF P50 INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
‘ ARSENIC
PN112-86-IO-O1-009 VOUJqE 2 GUIDELINE 5-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
‘ ASBESTOS
PN1 I2•78-O3-3 0•OOl VOLUME I STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF ADAMO
WRECKING CO4PANY V. UNITED STATES
PN112-85-02- 08- 006 VOLUME I REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
PNI I2-88-03-31-OlO VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
PN I13-88-03 -11- 046 VOLUME 2 LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CONPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION
306 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PNI I3-88 - 06-30-OSO VOLUME 2 ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
ATTAINMENT DATE POLICY
PNI72-19-O1-16-012 VOLUME I CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS REVISED ENCLOSURE
PN172•82-1O-29-041 VOLUME I QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS

-------
Page No. 3
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SU8JECT INDEX
DOCUMENT MOT 3OCK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
** ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
PN1O7-83- 04-21-OO8 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY JP ARY
PM107-85- 04 -O8-009 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FRON GERALD A. EMISON
PN11O-83-03-1B- 063 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO HARRY H. HOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
PN11O-87-05-11-088 VOLUME 2 GLIIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTIQJLATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
PN11O-88-06 -17-094 VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF “REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONOITIOHS FOR USE IN “EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCE’ DETERMINATIONS
Pw172-78-03-1O-002 VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
‘ ATTAINMENT EXTENSIONS
PN172-81-O1-22-039 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AM ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
PN172-82-1O-29-041 VOLUME I QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** AUTO COATINGS
PN I IO-80-07-31 -039 VOLUME I APPLICABILITY OF ‘I CC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES CCTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
PN165-88-04-25-03O VOLUME 2 LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
PN172-78 -1O-O6-O08 VOLUME 1 COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
PN172-88- 06-Z1-O6Z VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
PN172-88-12-O1-066 VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NOIIATTAINMENT AREAS
“ AVERAGING TIMES
PN165-87-04-O8-O18 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
** BACKGROUND SOURCES
Pw172-89-O5•03-O74 VOLUME 2 IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE NAAQS
‘ BACT DETERMINATIONS
PN165-78-12-22-OO I VOLUME 1 BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED Pa R PLANTS
PN165-86-11-26-016 VOLUME 2 NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZI I1ER POWER PLANT
PN I6S-87-O6-22- 019 VOLUME 2 HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BACT)
PN165-87-06-26-O2O VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED I JNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MUCs)
PW165-87 - O9 -22-O21 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSO REMAND
PN165-87-12-O1-022 VOLUME 2 IMPROVING NEW SQJRCE REVIEW (HSR) IMPLEMENTATION
P 1 116 5-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSO) REMAND
PN1T2-8$- 0621 062 ;VOLLIME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL

-------
Page MQ.
09/0 1/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
VOLUME I CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
VOLUME 1 BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
VOLUME 2 BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING $02 NAAQS
VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOSILE
MANUFACTURING I NOUSTRY
VOLUME 1 THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION hID
VOLUME 1 THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION 1110
VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSO) PERMIT ANALYSES
NOTEBOOK DCCLME?4T
VOLUME SUBJECT
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGNT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MOOELING STACKS ABOVE FORIIJLA GEP HEIGHT
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. EMISON
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
BART GUIDELINES
PH 123-85-10-28-009
‘Pill 23-89-04-20-017
BE HZ E N E
PH 110-85-08-27-071
P11112-84-06-01-004
• BLOCK AVERAGES
PM 110-83-05-27-066
P11110-86-03-28- 073
** BUBBLE POLICY
PH 110-80-07-31 -039
PN110-30- 08-08-041
‘ BUBBLE POLICY - SECTION 1110
P11110-30-08-08-04 1
• BUILDING DO%JNWASH
P11165-89-03-31-040
‘ BUILDING ROOFTOPS
P11165-84-06-11-014 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF P 50 INCREMENTS TO JILDING ROOFTOPS
‘ CAN COATINGS
P11172-80-11-20-032 VOUSIE I COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAM COATING OPERATIONS
CAPTURE EFFICIENCY
P11172-89-05-25-075 VOLUME 2 CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
* CARBON MONOXIDE SIPS
P11110-78-02-24-002
PH 110-82-08-11-060
P11110-83-05-27-064
P11172-81-05-21-03.8
P11172-81-01-22-039
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
SW 1ART OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF T982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)

-------
Page No. S
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN172•82-1O -29 -O61 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
PN172-88- 09- 07 064 VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART 0 AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
PN172-89-O1 -27 - 069 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
‘ CIVIL ENFORCEMENT COURT ACTIONS
PN113 -78-07 -27 -OO5 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(D)
PM I13-86-O1-17-027 VOLUME 2 ISSUES 3(E) AND 5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
“ CIVIL PENALTIES
PN112 -85-02 -08 -OO6 VOLUME I REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
PN113-87-03-25-035 VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
PN1 I3-88-03-02-O’.5 VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
COAL CONVERSIONS
PN113-83-04-26-O2 0 VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(0) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
COAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
PN113 -85 -1O-3O -025 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF COAL SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
PN I72-8 0-O7-02-029 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
- - COMPLIANCE
PN I12-84- 06-O1 -004 VOLUME 1 BENZENE NESHAP GUIDANCE
PN112-84- 07-11 -005 VOLUME I VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
PM112 -85-OZ- 08 - 0 06 VOU E I REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
PN112-86-1O-O1-009 VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
PN I I2 -88- 03-31 -010 VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESNAP STRATEGY
PN I13-83-O1 -12 -018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982 -
PN I I3-84-12-20 -O22 VOLUME 1 POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
PU113-86-04-11 -029 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
PN113-86-04-22-O30 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
PN113-86-08-22-O33 ,VOLUME 2 SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO’S

-------
Page No. 6
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POUCY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN1I3-87-O1- 09- 034 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO TOM BISPHRAM OH COB DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
PN167 -83-1214-O01 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
P N172-8 0-11-20- 032 VOLUME I COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
‘ COMPLIANCE DATA SYSTEM
PN1I3-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
PNI13-87-O1-09 - 034 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO TON BISPHRAM ON COS DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
** COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS
PwlIO-86-08-07 -O76 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
PN1I3-83 -O1-12•018 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20. 1982
*S COMPLIANCE MONITORING
PN11O-86- 04-11- 074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
P N113-82-08 -12-014 VOLUME I GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
Pw113-86-04 -22- 030 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
PPII14 -88-03-31-006 VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR FT 89
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
P 1 1113-83-04 -12-019 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PN I I3-86- 08-07-032 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
PN172-78-1O-06-008 VOLUME I CCIQ ENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
‘ COMPLIANCE TESTING
PN113-88-O3 -31-O48 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS GEMS POLICY
-- CONDITIONAL APPROVALS
P N I IO-78-02-24-002 VOLUME I CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
P 1 1110-79-07-02-Oil VOLUME I GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NOI&ATTAIHMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC C S4ENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS
P11114-83-12-1 5-003 VOLUME I EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT

-------
Page No. 7
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
CONSENT DECREES
PNI13-85-11-2 7-026 VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
PN113-870325035 VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
PN113-87-11-23-042 VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINNENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
PN I13-88 03-02-045 VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
‘ CONSTRUCTION BAN
PN I IO-8 01O-23-044 VOLUME I GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN165-86•O1-09-012 VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
‘ CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE
PN I I3-84•1O-OS-021 VOLUME I FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
PNI I3-86•06-1I-029 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY•REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
PNI I3-88-OT-05-051 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF S02 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
• CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING
PN11O•8 0-05-09-036A VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN 113-82’Q8-12- 014 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
PN113-84-1O-O5-021 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
PN I I3-86- 04-22-030 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
PN113-88•03-31-048 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAQPS CEMS POLICY
‘ CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
PN I13•8T•1O-Q8- 044 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON CORRECTING THE CONDITION GIVING RISE TO LISTING UNDER THE
CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM
PN I I3-88-03-11-046 VOLUME 2 LISTING ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION COMPANIES PURSUANT TO SECTION
306 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN1 I3-88-06-30-O5O VOLUME 2 ASBESTOS CONTRACTOR LISTING
** CONTROL STRATEGY
PN1O7B3O6-2l OO8 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY Q ARY
PN1IO-7B-02-24-0O2 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PNI1O-8 0•07-31-039 VOLUME I APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTUR I HG INDUSTRY
•• OOST EFFECTIVENESS
PN1T2-8 01202034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT

-------
Page No. 8
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NDTEBOCK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
N1I1BER VOLUME SUBJECT
CROSS LINE AVERAGING
PN1TZ-89-04-OT-073 VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
‘ CTGS
PN I IO-79•09-17-020 VOLUME I GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINNENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR
CITATION)
PN11O8O-07-31-039 VOLUME I APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
PN I1OBO-O8-04-O40 VOLUME I APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
PN172-78-08- 04-004 VOLUME I REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN I72-78-1O-O6-0O8 VOLUME I COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
PN172-79-06 -20•018 VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
PN17279 08-21-019 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
PNI7Z-79- 08-22-020 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CONPOUNDS(VOC)
PN172-8 0-06-16 -027 VOLUME 1 GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
PNI7Z-8 0-O7-O2-029 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
PN172-8 0- 09-03-03 0 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
PN172-80-12-02-034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQU IPI4ENT
PN IT2 -80-12-02-035 VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
PN172-84- 06-25- 066 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG’S)
PN17286- 06-25 067 VOLUME I CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE”
PN 17284-09-14-048 VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II. AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
PN17Z-84-12-21-049 VOLUME 1 CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
PN I72-85-07- 02-051 VOLUME I RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
Pw172-86 - 02-28-052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AJØ DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PN17287-O6-2 5-054 VOLUME 2 EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
PN172 86-O1-O9-O57 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE. AND POLYSTYRENE
PN IT2-88-08-23-063 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
‘ CUTBACK ASPHALT
PN17279-03 -O6-014 VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
PN IT2791004-O21 .VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT REGULATIONS

-------
9
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY OW EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF N100 ToN-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(0)
VOUI4E I DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH TEMPORARY
CONTROL MEASURES • AMENDED GUIDANCE
VOLUME I GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20. 1982
VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW AND FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION OF DELAYED
COMPLIANCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(D) OF THE CLEAR AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 113(d)(6) LETTER TO CAM MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
VOLUME 2 SAMPLE FEDERAL REGISTER LANGUAGE FOR PROPOSAL AND FINAL DCO’S
VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC’s)
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
VOLUME 2 DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CNSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
VOLUME I DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESI4APS
VOLUME I IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE CU EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES
PM113-85-O4-24-023 VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY .WARY
LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISO$I
DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
PN I1O-87-12-23- 092 VOLUME 2 EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
“ DISPERSION MOGELING
PN1O7-8 -O9- 16-007
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOT BOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
J8JECT
PN172 -86-09-29- 058 VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
DEGREASER REGULATIONS
PH 172-78-08-26-006
PM 172- 79-12-12-023
Pw172-80-07-02-029
PHi 72-84-06-25-047
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS
PM1 I3-78-07-27-OO S VOLUME 1
PHI 13-80-05-27-007
PNII3-83-O1 -12-018
PM 113-83-06-26-020
PM 113-86-06-02-031
PM 113-86-08-22-033
PN172-89•03- 16.071
PN11’1E-86-O9-11-OO4
PM 112-82-03-24-002
PM 165-85-05-09-015
PM 165-89-02-15-037
DESIGNATION CRITERIA
PM 107-82-09- 16-007
PMIO7-83-04-21 -008
PM IO7-85-04-08-009
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
.VOLUNE 1 MILWAUKEE S02 NONATTAIMMENT DESIGNATION

-------
Page No. 10
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN IO7-83-04-21-008 VOLUME I SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SL 4ARY
PN11O-84-11-28069 VOLUME 1 CORRECTING ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MCOEL RESULTS TO STANDARD TEMPERATURE
AND PRESSURE
PNIZ3 -86-02 -11-012 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION M ELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANTS WITH UTALL STACKS” AND OTHER PROHIBITED DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
PNIZ3-8510-28-008 VOLUME I IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
PN123-860211-O11 VOLUME 2 PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
PN123 -88-O5-17-016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
-- DRUM AND PAIL COATINGS
PN172•8 0-09-O3-030 VOLUME I MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRTUCTS CTG EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
** DUAL DEFINITION
PN16S-84-O1-O9-012 VOLUME I INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART D
—- ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
PNIIO-86-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PN11O-87 -O1-20-O8 0 VOLUME 2 DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
EKNA
PN17 Z -78-1O-26-0O9 VOLUME I OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
PN I72-81-O1-22-039 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
‘ EMISSION INVENTORIES
PN1T2•79-03-O6-014 VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
PN1fl-8 0-12-02- 034 VOLLME I COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
PN IT2-81-05-21-O38 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARSON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
PN I72-51-O1•22- 039 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AltO CARBON MONOXIDE PUN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
PN I72-.$9-O1-27- 069 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CALL AREAS
EMISSION OFFSETS
PN1IO-8O-03-1O-030 VOLUME 1 EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
PN11O-8 0-1O-23- 044 .OLUNE 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS

-------
11
Page No.
09/01,89
EMISSION TIME AVERAGING
PN1T2-84-O1 -20-045
EMISSIONS BALANCING
PN123-88-01 -07-015
EMISSIONS TRADING
PN I IO-82-11-24-061
PNI 10-85-01-02-070
PNI1 O-86-12 -04-077
PM 113-86-01-17-027
PN165-84-01 -20-013
PN172-84-O1 -20-045
PN1T2-89-04-07-073
EPUJLSIFIED ASPHALT
PHi 72-79- 03-06-014
‘ ENERGY CONSERVATION
PN175-8 0-06-23-006
** ENERGY EMERGENCIES
PM 110-80-01-10-023*
- - ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
PN1 13-87-03-25-035
PN1 13-87-06-25-037
PN113-87-11-23- 062
PN I13-88-03-02-045
PHi 13-88-03-31-048
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
VOLUME I IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSRIPSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
VOLUME I SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
VOLUME 2 STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (FR CITATION)
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
VOLUME 2
VOLLJ E 2
SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF M ELING GUIDANCE
EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATEMENT (CITATION)
ISSUES 3(E) AND VS OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
VOLUME I PSD INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
VOLUME I AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185, CONSERVATION OF PETROLEUM AND
NAT *AL GAS
VOLLJ4E 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (V1IAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF REISSUED OAOPS CEMS POLICY
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
PN165-8 5-O5-09-015
PN1 72-79-05-25-016
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT

-------
Page No. 12
09/01/89
EPISODE MONITORING
PHI 10-83-05-27-064
EXCESS EMISSIONS
PHI 13-83-02-15-017
PHi 13-84-10-05-021
EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE
PHi 10-88-06-17-096
FABRIC COATING
PNIIO•80•O8•06•04 0
PN172-80- 12-02-035
FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT
PHI 12-86-06-01-004
PHi 12-84.07- 11-005
PM 112-85-02-08-006
PHi 12-86-10-01-009
PHI 12-88-03-31 -010
PHi 13-85-04-24-023
PHi 13-86-04-22-030
PHI 13-87-03-25-035
PNI 13-87-O7•06-038
PNI13-87-09-11-040
PHi 13-87-09-23-041
PN 1 I3-87-iI-23-062
PHI 13-87-12-31-043
PHi 13-88-03-02-065
PHi 13-88-03-31-049
PN16S-87-06-08- 018
PN16T-83-1Z-14-001
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
VOLUME I S 1JI1ARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
VOLUME I POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTOQUN, MAINTENANCE, AND
IIALFUNCT IONS
VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF “REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS” FOR USE IN “EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCE” DETERMINATIONS
VOLUME I APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
VOLUME I tACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
VOLUME I BEMZENE HESHAP GUIDANCE
VOLUME I VINYL CHLORIDE MESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE 5-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESMAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESHAP STRATEGY
VOLUME I ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FRON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
VOLUME 2 REVISED CLEAN AIR ACT STATIONARY SOURCE CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY FINAL
VOLUME 2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS M D SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
VOLUME 2 REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STL IES
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY Oil AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
OLUME 2 OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
PN167-88-03-29-002

-------
Page No.
09/01/89
13
MR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
GUIDANCE ON FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
•LETTER TO ROBERT R. WANLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - PRESUMPTIVE lISPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORPIJLA GEP HEIGHT
DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS IN EXISTENCE’ BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
GUIDANCE Oil POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF VE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHICH
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF NIOO TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SUJRCEN
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
** FEDERAL LAND MANAGER
PM169A -85- 03-25.OO1 VOLUME 1
‘ FEDERALLY-REPORTABLE VIOLATIONS
PN1 I3-86 - 04-11- 029 VOLUME 2
‘ FLARES
PN1T2-8O-12-O2-O35 VOLUME 1
** FLOATING ROOF TANKS
PN172-81-02-O6.O36 VOLUME 1
FLUE GAS CONDITIONS
PN I I3-8 0- 03-11-OO6 VOLUME 1
PN1 I3-83- 04-12- 019 VOLUME I
‘ FLUID MODELING
Pw123-85- 09-19-O 06 VOLUME 1
PN123-35-jQ-28- 0 09 VOLUME 1
PN1Z3-85-1O-28-O1O VOLUME I
FUEL SHORTAGES ANALYSIS
PN1Z4-78-O7-31-OO1 VOLUME I
- - FUGITIVE DUST
PM11O-78-O2-24-OOZ VOLUME 1
PN11O-8 0-O3-1O-O3 0 VOLLJIE I
-- FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
PM113-82-O5- 04- 013 VOLUME 1
“ GASOLINE STORAGE
PM1T2-86- 06-25- 047 VOLUME 1
“ GASOLINE TANK TRUCKS
PNI7Z-8O-O6-16-O27 VOLUME I

-------
“ GRAPHIC ARTS
PHi 10-80-08-04-040
PN172-80- 12-02-035
PH 172-84-06-25-047
PN 17Z-87 -09-09-055
“ HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
PHi 10-82-11 -24-061
PN1 13 -88-03-02- 045
“ INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
PHi 13-80-03- 11-006
‘ INDUSTRIAL COATINGS
PHi 72-85-04-25-050
INSPECTION FREQUENCY
PH 114-88-03-31-006
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE
PM 110-78-02-26-002
PN1IO-7B-07- 17.007
PN11O-82-08-11- 06 0
PN172-81 -05-21-038
PN172-81 -01 -22-039
“ INSPECTIONS AND ENTRY
PHi 14-77- 12-02OO1A
PH 114-86-09-06-004
VOLUME 1
VOLUME I
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
VOUI E I
VOLUME I
VOLUME 1
VOLUME I
voiu € I
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
Page No. U.
091C1189
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
“ GEP STACK HEIGHT
PN123-85- 10- 28-009
“ GLASS MANUFACTURING
PHi 12-86-10-01 -009
“ INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
PM11 O-30- 09 -25-043 VOLUME I
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
VOLUME I IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS PQES 1. TIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MXELING STACKS ABOVE FORN.IU GEP HEIGHT
VOLUME 2 GJIOELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESMAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PLANTS
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATINGS FABRIC COATINGS AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF ‘100 TON•PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE’
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
VOLUME I SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
VOLUME 2 REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VKAP) CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMP JWDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
VOLUME 2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR FY 89
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
VOLUME I GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 116(D) OF THE CU
VOLUME I FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS

-------
Page No. 15
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POUCY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOJEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
“ INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION
PN IIO-79-06-18-O66 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
** INTERIM CONTROL POLICY
PN1 I3-88•03-31•047 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF OAQPS INTERIM CONTROL POLICY STATEMENT
INTERIM STACK HEIGHT POLICY
PN123•88- 05-17- 016 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
‘ INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION
PNI15-73-O1-31-OO1 VOLUME I ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
PN1IS•7 5- 03-20- 0O2 VOLUME I INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
** INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION
PN1Z6-75- 03•16-OO1 VOLUME 1 GUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
PN126•89-O1-11-O 05 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO THOMAS JORLING REGARDING INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION CRITERIA
• LAER DETERMINATIONS
PN165 37-O6-26-Q2O VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE Oil CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEIJ AND MODIFIED IJNICIPAI.
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCS)
PN16 S•87-1Z.Ol.. 022 VOLUME 2 IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIE 4 (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
PN165-U- 04.25- 03 0 VOLUME 2 LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT•DUTT TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPE RAT IONS
PN165-8a- 08-29- 034 VOLUME 2 TRANSFER OF TECHNOLCOY IN DETERMINING LONEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE
(LAER)
PN165-89-02•ZB- 033 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING LOUEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)
PN172-88-O6 .21- e 2 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
LANDFILLS
PN165-87-1O•O6- 029 VOLLJIE 2 EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
LEAD MONITORING
PN11O-79-11-21-O23 VOLUME 1 MINI NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY AVERAGE LEAD
CONCENTRAT lO ll
‘ LEAD SIPS
PN1IO-79- 06-14-O16 VOLUME 1 LEAD SIPS
PN1 IQ-BO- 06-O8- 032 VOLUME I NEW SOURCE REVIEV REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
PN I IO-83- 05-26- 068 VO1j.D4E 1 DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR FOR LEAD
PN1 IO-33-O3-14- 087 VOLUME 1 ISSUES ON LEAD SIPS
e LETTER NOTICE
PN11O-89•O1•3 0•1 02 •VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS

-------
Page No. 16
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
LOW SOLVENT COATINGS
PN113-86 - 08-07-032 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
PN172-8 0-11-20032 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
“ MARINE VESSELS
PN1T2-89-02-15-OTO VOLUME 2 MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
‘ MERGED STACKS
Pw123-85-1O-23-0 08 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FRON RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
PN12385-1028-O1O VOLUME 1 DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS 1N EXISTENCE BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
“ METAL CAN MANUFACTURING
PN I I3-86-06 02-031 VOLUME 2 113(d)(4) LETTER TO CAN MANUFACTURERS INSTITUTE
METAL PARTS COATINGS
PN172 -8 0•09 -03 -030 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SKIPPING PAILS AND DRLD S
PN172-89- 04 -O3-O72 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
PN172-89- 04-O7-073 VOLUME 2 BASELINE FOR CROSS•LINE AVERAGING
METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS
PN IO7-85-O4• 08-009 VOLUME I LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FRON GERALD A. EI4ISON
** METHYL CHLOROFORM
PN1T2-7806-26006 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
PN1T2-79-OS-25-017 VOLUME I CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACT IVIT IFS
** METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Pw172-79-OS-25-017 VOLUME I CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
‘ MODIFIED SOURCE
PN16S-8607-07-024 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P 50) DEFINITION OF MODIFICATIONN
PN165 -86-1O•21•025 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF P50 TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES WITHOUT
PERMITS
PN165-86-12-O1-026 VOLUME 2 WEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON CONPLEX NETTING SOURCES
PN165 -89•O4-IO -041 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P50) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (502) EMISSIONS FRON INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
CO4POUNDS

-------
Page No. 17
O9/ i 39
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
NOtEBOOK
VOLUME
MUNICIPAL WASTE INCINERATION
VOLUME 2 HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(BACT)
VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR MEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
VOLUME 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P 50)
APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
TREATMENT WORKS
VOLUME 1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR.
CITATION)
VOLUME 2 DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
VOLUME 1 STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS DEMOLITION REGULATIONS IN LIGHT OF ADAMO
WRECKING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES
VOLUME I DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO STATES: NESHAPS
VOLUME I BENZENE NESNAP GUIDANCE
VOLUME I VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
VOLUME 1 REVISIONS TO ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION CIVIL PENALTY POLICY
VOLUME 2 GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING
PUNTS
VOLUME 2 REVISED ASBESTOS NESKAP STRATEGY
VOLUME I REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
VOLUME 1 FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
INTERPRETATION OF “SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION
INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY OW COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART 0
APPLICABILITY OF P50 INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSO) PROGRAM TRANSFER
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PR UCTION LIMITATIONS
jOCUMEN I
N’JM3R
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
PM 165-87-04-22019
PH 165-87-06-26-020
PH 165-88-06-07-031
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
PH 172-80-08-11-043
‘ NESNAP
PN111E-86-09-11-0 04
PN112-78-O3-3 0-OO1
PN1 12-82-03-24-002
PHi 12-84-06-01 -004
PN11Z-84-O7- 11-005
PHI 12-85-02-08-006
PHi 12-86-10-01 -009
PHi 12-88-03-31 -010
PHi 13-85-11-27-026
PH 113-86-04-11-028
PM 114-81-05-13-002
PHi 14-84-09-06-004
P11120-80-09-12-001
-- NEW SOURCE REVIEW
PHi 10-80-04-08-032
PNI6S-8O- 12-16-007
PN165-84-01 -09-012
PH 165-84-06-11-014
PH 165-85-05-09-015
PH 165-87-04-08-018
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME I
VOLUME 1
VOLUME I

-------
‘ NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PM 107-82-09-16-007
PN10783-04-21 -008
PN1 10-78-02-24-002
PHi 10-79-04-04-015
PHi 10-79-07-02-017
PH 110-79-09-17-020
PH 110-80-10-23-044
PHI 10-88-11-04-098
PHI 13-83-01 - 12-018
PN1 I3-85-11-27-026
Pw 113-8 7-11-23-042
A R PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
VOLUME 2 HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE OHTROL TECHNOLOGY
C BA CT )
VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE CD4BUSTORSO4ICS)
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
EMISSIONS FRON LANDFILLS
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSO)
PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NUOS INTERPRETATION
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (W02)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM
DUTIES
VOLUME 1 NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - iSSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION
VOLUME 1 MILWAUKEE S02 NOMATTAINMENT DESIGNATION
VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SLRQ1ARY
VOLUME I CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING OH APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (FR CITATION)
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING OH APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC C B ENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
VOLUME I GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PUN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES QUIDELINES) (FR
CITATION)
VOLUME 1 GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NAAOS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON LONG-TERM NONATTAINMENT OF THE PH1O STANDARDS
VOLUME I GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION Of THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20. 1982
VOLUME 1 REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES 1PLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
VOLUME 2 SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NOHATTAINNENT AREAS AGAINST
STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN C34PLIAHCE BY THE APPLICABLE
ATTAINMENT DATE
•VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS S1WIES
NOTE S CC K
VOLUME
Page No.
09/01/89
C C CUME NT
NUMBER
PN165-87-06-22-019
PN16587-06-26-020
PN165-87-12-OI -022
P M 165-85-06-28-023
PNI65-87- 10-06-029
PH 165-88-07-05-032
PN167-88-O7-15- 003
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
HO-ACTION ASSURANCES
PN II3-84-12-20-022 VOLUME I POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES
** N02 SIPS
PHi 10-83-05-27-064
PM 165-89-02-15-037
NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT
PN1137 11O50O1
PHI 13-88-03-31-049

-------
Page No. 19
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLIJME SUBJECT
PN172-83-11-02- 044 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART 0 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(FR CITATION)
PN172-84- 06-25-Q46 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTG’S)
PN172-84- 06- 25• 047 VOLUME I CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF “100 TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOIJRCEU
PN I72-84- 09.14- 048 VOLUME I VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METN S OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
PN172-84-12-21- 049 VOLUME 1 CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
PN172-85-O7- 02-051 VOLUME I RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PROOUCTS
PNI72-36-1O-3O-O53 VOLUME 2 INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CIC REQUIREMENTS
PN172-8?- 06-25- 054 VOLUME Z EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
PW172-87• 09-11- 059 VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
PN172-87-12-1O- VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
PN172-88- 05-27- 061 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
PH172-88-O9-O7-o VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PUNS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISONS OF PART 0 AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
PN172-88-12-O1-O66 VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN I75-8O- 06-12-OO3 VOLUME 1 PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN17’5-8O-O6-23- 0 09 VOLUME 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
PN176-79-O6-Q -OO1 VOLUME 1 IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTA,INMENT SANCTIONS
NONCOMPLIANCE
PN I2O•8O- 09-I2-Oo1 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NON IPLIAIICE
PN12O-8I-O2-12-O 03 vOuiq 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT
PN12O-81- 06.02. 004 VOLUME I SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION .120 OF THE
CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED
PN120-81-04-3O-O 05 VOLUME 1 ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
PN I2 O-85•O3-19- 0 06 VOLUME I PERMISSIBLE GROUNDS FOR SETTLEMENT OF NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES UNDER
SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN I2O-55- 03-19-O 07 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT IN
FISCAL YEAR 1985
NOTICES OF VIOLATION
PN113-75-11. 05 .OOI VOLUME I NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT DUTIES - ISSUANCE OF NOTICES OF VIOUTION
PN113-?6- 06-25-0 02 VOLUME I DOCUMENTATION OF VIOLATION EXTENDING 30 DAYS BEYOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

-------
Page No. 20
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN11383-0112018 VOLUME I GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1962 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
NOx EMISSION LIMITATIONS
PN11O•7802-26-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
.* NSPS
PN I IO-800509-034A VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN11 1E-76-0503O01 VOLUME I ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
PN I11E-82-05-0?-002 VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
PN111E-86- 09-11- 0 04 VOLUME 2 DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (lISPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHORITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES
PN113-820812-014 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
PN1 I3•84•10-05021 VOLUME I FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF EXCESS EMISSION REPORTS
P I ll 13-85•1O-30025 VOLUME 1 FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON THE REVIEW AND USE OF L SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS DATA
PN113-85-11-27-026 VOLUME I REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
R OUIREMEMTS BY SHUTDOWN
PNI14•81•05-13-002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES
AMENDED GUIDANCE
PN I2O-8 0-09-12-0O1 VOLUME 1 PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONcOMPLIANCE
Pw123-85-1O-280 09 VOLUME I IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORNJLA GEP HEIGHT
PN16S-8607-07-024 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORAJION (P 50) DEFINITION OF “MODIFICATIOW
PN165-88- 09-O9O35 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P50) AND NEW
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (lISPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
PN165i8-1O-l O36 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOUS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
PN 172-78-O8-24-O 06 VOLUME I CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
* OFFSETS - GENERAL
PN165-8 0 -12-16-OOT VOLUME 1 INTERPRETATION OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TM
-- OPERATING PERMITS
PN172-79-05- 25 -016 VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
_ : ORGANISOLS
PN172•85•04•25-050 VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CAL CULAT IONS
‘ OZONE SIPS
PNIOT-85 - 04- 08-OO9 OLUME 1 LETTER TO JUDGE TERRY ROBERTS FROM GERALD A. EMISON

-------
Page No. 21
09/01/ 89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PH107-85-10-08-010 VOLUME 1 OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
PN1O7-86-04-11-012 VOLUME 2 REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGMATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
PN IOT-87- 04- 06-013 VOLUME 2 OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
PN11O-78-O2- 24-002 VOLUME I CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
pwI IO-79-09-17-02 0 VOLUME I GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) CFR
CITATION)
PN11O-82-08-11- 06 0 VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
Pw11O -83-05-27- 064 VOLUME I SUMMARY OF NAAOS INTERPRETATION
PN11O-8 0-0?22- 067 VOLUME 1 (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
Pw l lO-85-08-27-071 VOLUME I CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
PN11O -86- 08-07-O76 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
PN1 IO -87-D1- 08•O79 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
PN11O-87-04-17-081 VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
PNI13-87-O7-06-038 VOLUME 2 SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
PN11387-09-11- 04O VOLUME 2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
PN113-88-O3-31-O49 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STI. IES
PN172-78-O3-1O-002 VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEHICAL OXIDANTS
PN172-78- 08-O4-O04 VOLUME I REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN17 2-73-1O-26-OO9 VOLUME I OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
PN172-79-D3- 06-014 VOLUME I CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
PN172-79-O5•25-O17 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
PW172-7906•20-O18 VOLUME 1 MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
PN IT2-79-08-22-O20 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PUNS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACY
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS(VOC)
PN172-79-12-12-023 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
PN IT2-80-07-02-029 VOLUME I EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
PN1728 0-09- 03-030 VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEQUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
PN1728 0-11-20032 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
PN172-8O-12-O1-O33 VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
PN172-8 0-12- 02- 034 VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUI PMENT
PN17’2-8 0-12-02-035 VOLUME I RACY FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
PN17281-02- 06-036 VOLUME I STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
PN172-81-05-21-038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
PN 172-81b1-22-039 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
PN1T2-82-1O-29-O41 VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
PN172-84-06-25-047 VOLUME 1 CONFIRMATION OF DEFINITION OF 1OO TON-PER-YEAR (100 TPY) SOURCE”

-------
Page No. 22
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN172-86-02 -2B-0 52 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PN1T2-86-09 -29•058 VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
PN172-8?-O9-11-059 VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
PN172-87-12-10060 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDOETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
- VOC REGULATIONS
PN172-88-O6-21-062 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTONOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
PN172-88-09-O7-066 VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PR SJLGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART 0 AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)
PN172-88-12•O1•066 VOLUME 2 RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN172-89-O1 -27-069 VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSVERS Oil EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PUN CALL AREAS
** OZONE/CO CONTROL STRATEGY
PN1lO•78 -O2•2 -O02 VOLUME I CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PN172-81-01-2 2 -039 VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARSON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
PAPER COATING
PN11O-80- 08-04- 060 VOLUME I APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
PN172 8O-12-OZ-035 VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
PARTICULATE MATTER SIPS
PN11O-78-OZ-24-002 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PN I1O-8O-03-1O-030 VOLUME I EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
PN I IO-87- 08-11-O85 VOLUME 2 PROCESSING OF PARTICULATE MATTER STATE IMPLEMENTATION PUN REVISIONS
PN I IO-8705 -11088 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION AND AIR
QUALITY DATA
PN11O-87- 08-11- 09 0 VOLUME 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PM1O STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’s)
PN11O-8?•1O-02-O91 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES FOR PMIO NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
PN1 IO-8809-06- 097 VOLUME 2 PNIO SIP DEVELOPMENT: STATUS AND CONCERNS
PN I IO-88 -11- 04-098 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE 0)1 LONG-TERM NONATTAIIINEMT OF THE PN1O STANDARDS
PNh1O-88-11-21-099 VOLUME 2 REVISION TO POLICY ON THE USE OF PMIO MEASUREMENT DATA
PN11O-89- 06-3 0-1 03 VOLUME RESPONSE TO PMIO CONTROL STRATEGY ISSUES
PN113—8 0 -03-11- 006 VOLUME 1 INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PN I13-83 - 04-12-019 VOLUME I LETTER TO ROBERT R WANLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY Oil
INTER IN PARTICULATE CONTROLS
PN113•8S-06- 28- 024 VOLUME 1 PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
PN165•87-08•O5-028 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P 50)
PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER

-------
Page No.
09/01/89
23
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOJRCES FOR cOMPLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
VOLUME 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
VOLUME 2 OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SCURCE PERMITS UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT
VOLUME I SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME I CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1919 SIP REVISIONS
COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
VOLUME I STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRcOUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECO ENDATIONS FOR NIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE 1 AND POLYSTYRENE
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECO*ENOATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE 1
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CIG RACT REC I4ENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE 9 AND POLYSTYRENE
FIRED
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
VOLUME I
ENFORCEMENT OF NSPS REQUIREMENTS
RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE Oil EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
LETTER TO ROBERT R. WAHLER FROM KATHLEEN BENNETT RE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON
INTERIM PARTICULATE CONTROLS
•VOLUME 1 BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
DOCUMENT NCTEBOO
DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME
SUBJECT
PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES
PN123-86-02-I1-O11 VOLUME 2
** PERFORMANCE TESTS
PN111E-76-05-03-OO1
PN1 I 1E-82-05-07-002
‘ PERMIT ENFORCEABILITY
PH 167-88-03-29-002
PH 167-88-07-15-003
PN17’2-?9- 05-25- 016
“ PERMIT FEES
PN1 10-78-02-24-002
PETROLEUM REFINERY LEAKS
PN172-8O-12-02-034 VOLUME 1
** PHARMACEUTICALS
PH 172-81-02-06-036
** POLYETHYLENE
P1 1172-86-01 -09-057
** POLYPROPYLENE
PHi 72-86-01 -09-057
‘ POLYSTYRENE
PN172-86-O1-09-057
POWER PLANTS - COAL
PHi 141-76-05-03-001
PHI 1IE-82-O5-O?-002
PN 1 1380-03-11-0O6
PN1 13-83-04-12-019
PN165-78- 12-22-001

-------
Page No. 21.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
** PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS
PNI1O-80-O1•1O•023A VOLUME 1 ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
PRESUMED CONPLIANCE
PN126-78-03-16-OO1 VOLUME I OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION
• PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
PN165 87-O4O8 O18 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
** PSO
PN11O-87-O9 2I-086 VOLUME 2 AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION
PN113-87-05-27•036 VOLUME 2 REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES’ ALA PLANT AND P 50 REVIEW
PN165-81-04-03-O 06 VOLUME 1 LETTER TO NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FROM EDWARD F. TUERK REGARDING P50 PERMITS
PN165-84-O1-20-013 VOLUME I P 50 INCREMENT CONSUMPTION CALCULATIONS
PN165-84O6 11O14 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF PSO INCREMENTS TO BUILDING ROOFTOPS
PN165-85-05-09-O15 VOLUME I IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
PN165-86-11-26-016 VOLUME 2 NEED FOR A SHORT•TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT) ANALYSIS
FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZI*IER POWER PLANT
PN165-87-06-26-020 VOLUME 2 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROl. TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCS)
PN165-87-09-22-O21 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSO REMAND
PN165-87-12 OI O22 VOLUME 2 IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
PN16S-8607-07024 VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P 50) DEFINI.TION OF NODIFICATIOII
PN165-86-1O-21-O25 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF P 50 TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES WITHOUT
PERMITS
PN165-86-12-O1-026 VOLUME 2 NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
PN1658TO1 29-O2T VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MOOELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
PN I6S-87- 08-O5- 028 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSO)
PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER
PN165-8S-06-O7-O31 VOLUME 2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P50)
APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
PN165-88 O7-O5-O32 VOLUME 2 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION CPSD)
PN165 88-O7•28•O33 VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P50) REMAND
PN 165-88-09-09-035 VOLUME 2 APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSO) AND NEW
SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
PN165-88•1O-14-O36 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
PN165-89-O2 15 O37 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN DIOXIDE (P102)
INCREMENTS PROGRAM

-------
25
Pace No.
ocI3l,ac
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
VOLUME 2 USE OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FOR NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(NAAQS) IMPACT ANALYSES UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P 50)
VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSO) PERMIT ANALYSES
VOLUME 2 PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION CPSO) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON ENFORCEMENT OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
VOLUME 2 OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
VOLUME I SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES QJIDEL NES) (FR
CITATION)
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
VOLUME I COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME I AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
VOLUME 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF CTC RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE,
POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
VOLUME 2 TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CJTOFF
DOCUMENT
NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
VOLUME
SUBJECT
PN16 S-89- 03-16O39
— PN16589-03-31 -040
PN165-89- 04- IO-041
PN167-83- 12-14-001
PN167-83-03-29-002
PH 172-79-05-25-016
‘ PSO APPLICABILITY
PN165-80-12-16-OO7 VOLUME I INTERPRETATION OF “SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONN
PUBLIC COMMENT
PN I1O-79-O7- 02-017
PM 110-79-09-17-020
** PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MEASURES
PN11O-78-02-24-0 02 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
VO I
VOLUME I
VOLUME 2
VOLUME I
** RACT DETERMINATIONS
PN1 IO-78-02-24 -002
PN1 IO-8 2- 08-11 060
PNI 10-87-01-20-080
PM 113-83-01-12-018
PN172•80-I1-20- 032
PN I72-84-O1-20- 065
PN ITZ-85-O7-02-O51
PN 172-86-O2-28052
PM 172-86-01-09-0 57
PN172-88-O6-21 -062
PN172-88-08-23-O63

-------
26
Page No.
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
PN17288-11-04065 VOLUME 2
PN I72-88-12-O1-066 VOLUME 2
PN172 -88•11-04 -068 VOLUME 2
-- REACTIVITY
PN1 1O.77-07-08 -065
PN I1O-85-08-27-0?1
PM 110-87-04-17-081
PHi 10-87-07-21-089
‘ REASONABLE FURTHER
PN1 10-78-02-2 -002
PM 165-85-05-09-015
PN172•81 -01 -22-039
REDESIGNATIOM PROCEDURES
PM1O7-85-1O-08-O1O VOLUME 1
PM1OT-86-O4 -11-012 VOLUNE2
PM1OT-87-O4-06- 013 VOLUME 2
PNIO7-88-04- 05-014 VOLUME 2
PN11O -86-12-1O- 078 VOLUME 2
REGIONAL CONSISTENCY
PM 110-82-08 -11-060
PN3O1-81-01-20-O01
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
PH 113-83-01-12-018
REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS
PN110-88-06-17• 094 VOLUME 2 DEMONSTRATION OF “REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONSN FOR USE IN EXPECTED
EXCEEDANCEU DETERMI NATIONS
‘ R SOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES
PN165-87-O9-22 -O21 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSO REMAND
P 1 4165-88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P 50) REMAND
‘ RISK ANALYSIS
PHI 12-85-09-17-008
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
NOTEBOOK
VOLUME
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT
EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACY RULES
RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
VOLUME I (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED UREC I1END POLICY ON CONTROL OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC CONPOUNDS”)
VOLUME 1 CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CONPOJNDS (VOC’s)
PROGRESS
VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEWPREVENTIOM OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSD) PROGRAM TRANSFER
VOLUME 1 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION CFR CITATION)
OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESICNATIONS
REQUIRED MONITORING PERIOD FOR OZONE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY ON REDESIGNATION OF 2 INDIANA COUNTIES
RULEMAKING OH STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS CSIP’S) FOR S02
VOLUME 1 REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CD SIPS
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL CONSISTENCY REGULATIONS
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF TNE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
VOLUME I PREPARATION OF QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN AGENCY DECISION-MAKING

-------
Page No. 27
09,01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT :.3 EBCCK CC.. IENT
NUMBER VOU..’ME SUBJECT
‘ RISK ASSESSMENT
PN17279-0 525-017 VOLUME I CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACT IVIT IES
** RISK REDUCTION
PN1I2-85- 06-xx 0 07 VOLUME 1 REPRINT OF THE EPA AIR TONICS STRATEGY (REFERENCE ONLY)
** ROLLBACK
PM172-78-1O-26009 VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
** RULE EFFECTIVENESS
PN113-88-03-31-049 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE EFFECTIVENESS STL IES
‘ RUNNING AVERAGES
PN11O83 0527-064 VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAOS INTERPRETATION
RURAL NONATTAINMENT
PN17’284-O6•25-066 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF GROUP III CONTROL TECHNIQUES QJIDELINES (CTG’S)
** SANCTIONS
PN11O-8O-1023•O44 VOLUME I GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY MAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN1I5•78-03•20-002 VOLUME 1 INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
PN17Z-3O- 08•11-043 VOLUME 1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT RKS: CONSTRUCTION GRANTS LIMITATION
PROVIDED BY SECTION 316 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT: POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FR
CITATION)
PN1783-11-O2-O41 1 VOLUME 1 COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(FR CITATION)
PN172-87 09•11-059 VOLUME 2 GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
PN176-79-O6•O8•OO1 VOLUME 1 IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
-- SEASONAL CONTROLS
PN11087-O1-08-079 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
PN120-81-04-30-005 VOLUME I ISSUANCES OF NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE UNDER SECTION 120 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT TO SEASONAL SOURCES
PN I6 S-85• 06•28-023 VOLUME 2 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
PN172-8 0-12-O1-033 VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
PN172-86-02•28•O52 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PN I72•86-O9-29-058 VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
** SECONDARY STANDARDS
PNI1O-80-03-IO-03 0 VOLUME 1 EMISSION OFFSET REOUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS

-------
25
Page ho.
09/01/59
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUB EC1 INDEX
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY NA.AQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PLANS UNDER SECTION 1110 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
SECTION 1110
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION 1110
POLICY ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, MAINTENANCE, AND
MALFUNCTIONS
REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURcES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES’ RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
IDENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1982 DEADLINE ENFORCEMENT POLICY ISSUED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1982
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
PLANS UNDER SECTION 1110 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY STANDARD TOTAL SUSPENDED
PARTICULATE PLANS
GROWTH RESTRICTIONS IN SECONDARY MAAQS NONATTAINMENT AREAS
EPA POLICY ON WELFARE-RELATED POLLUTANTS UNDER SECTION 1110
ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
aREVIEWAOILITYI OF EPA DETERMINATIONS IN SIP ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS - ORDERS UNDER SECTION 113(A)
AND 113(0)
DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS REQUIRING SIP COMPLIANCE THROUGH TEMPORARY
CONTROL MEASURES - AMENDED GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF yE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES WHICH
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
GUIDANCE CONCERNING EPA’S USE OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING DATA
0OCU.4E IT
NOTESOOK
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
VOLUME
SUBJECT
PN11O -8O -1O-23-044 VOLUME 1
SECTION 1110 PLAN REQUIREMENTS
— Pw l lO-?8-03-24-003 VOLUME 1
PN I IO-80-O8-08-O41 VOLUME I
PN1 I ID-81- 09 -14-OO1 VOLUME 1
“ SHUTDOWNS
PN113-83 -02-15-O17 VOLUME 1
PN1 I3-85-11-27-026 VOLUME 1
Pw113 -87 -05-27-036 VOLUME 2
** SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
Pw11O-88-O8-05-O96 VOLUME 2
PN1 I3 -83-O1-12018 VOLUME 1
PN1 I3-86- 04-11-OZ8 VOLUME 2
“ SIP COMPLETENESS CRITERIA
PN11O-88 -03-18-O93 VOLUME 2
“ SIP CRITERIA MEMO
PN11O -78- 02- 24-0O2 VOLUME 1
SIP ENFORCEMENT
PN1 IO-78-03-24-0O3 VOLUNE I
Pw11O-80-03-1O-030 VOLUME I
PN11O-8 0-1O-23-O44 VOLUME I
PN II1D-81 - 09-14-OO1 VOLUME I
PN113-76-O8-12 - 003 VOLUME 1
PN1 I3-76-O8-13- 004 VOLUME I
PN113-78-07-27 -OO5 VOLUME 1
PN1I3’ SO-O5-27- 007 VOLUME I
PNI13-82-05-O4-O13 VOLUME I
PN I13-82-O8-12 -014 VOLUME 1
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PHi 13-84-12-20-022
VOLUME 1 POLICY ON NO-ACTION ASSURANCES

-------
Page No. 29
09/01/89
AIR PR0GRA IS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN11385- 0628-024 VOLUME 1 PARTICULATE MATTER INTERIM ENFORCEMENT POLICY
PN113-85-11-27026 VOLUME I REVISED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RESPECTING SOURCES COMPLYING WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS BY SHUTDOWN
Pw113-86-0411-028 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE QJIDAJICE
PNI14-81-05-13- 002 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
PN114-84-09-060O4 VOLUME 1 FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
PN12O-8O -O9 12-OO1 VOLUME I PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
PN172-79-05-25-O16 VOLUME 1 SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
PN17Z-86-022 5 -052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
‘ SIP FORMAT
PN11O-80-09-25-043 VOLUME I INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
PM11O-810722-052 VOLUME I EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
‘ SIP GENERAL PREAMBLE
PN11O-79-04 -Ot.-015 VOLUME I GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING OW APPROVAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS (FR CITATION)
PN I1O-79-07- 02•017 VOLUME I GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING CI I APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON PUBLIC CC B1ENT AND CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL)
SIP GRANDFATHERING
PN I1O-88-O6-27-095 VOLUME 2 ‘GRANDFATHERING’ OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
PN IT2-81-05-21 -038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
-- SIP REGULATORY CONTINUITY
PN172-79-O1-16-0 12 VOLUME I CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
“ SIP RELAXATION
PN113-76- 08-12 0 03 VOLUME 1 ENFORCEMENT OF SIPS UNDERGOING REVISION
SIP REQUIREMENTS - MDX
PN11O-78-02- 24-002 VOLUME I CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1919 SIP REVISIONS
PN11O-80-05- 09•036A VOLUME I CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR INCLUSION OF CONTINUOUS EMISSION
- MONITORING PROVISIONS IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
‘ SIP REVIEW PROCEDURES
PN1OT-83 04-21 -O08 VOLUME I SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SWW ARY
PN1ID-eO-09-25-O43 VOLUME 1 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
PW1IO-81-O1-22-052 VOLUME 1 EXPERIMENTAL STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) PROCESSING TECHNIQUES

-------
Page Mo. 30
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PM11O-81-11-09-055 VOLUME 1 NEW PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN11O-82 - 06-23 -059 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-NEW SIP PROCESSING PROCEDURES TO SAVE TIME AND
RESOURCES (FR CITATION)
PN11O-82- 08-11-060 VOLUME I REVIEW OF 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
PN I1O-83-O3-18-063 VOLUME I LETTER TO HARRY H. NOVEY RE EPA POLICY WITH REGARD TO AMBIENT AIR
PN1IO-87-12-23-O92 VOLUME 2 EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
PN11O-88- 03-18-093 VOLUME 2 POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
PN11OB8-06-27-095 VOLUME 2 “GRANOFATHERING’ OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
PN1 IO-88-08-05-O96 VOLUME 2 IDENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
PNI1O-89-O1•19-100 VOLUME 2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPLETENESS REVIEW (FR CITATION)
PN11O-89-O1-19101 VOLUME 2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROCESSING REFORM (FR CITATION)
PN IIO•89-Ol-30-102 VOLUME 2 PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
PN I13-87-O6-25-037 VOLUME 2 PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
PN172-79-05-25-O16 VOLUME I SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
PN172-32-IO-29041 VOLUME I QUESTIONS AND ANS JERS OIl 1982 OZONE AND CO SIPS
** SIP REVISIONS
PNIO7-83-04-21-0O8 VOLUME I SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SLN4ARY
PN11O-83-O -27-O64 VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
PN11O-79-O6-18-066 VOLUME 1 REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION. ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS: INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATION (FR CITATION)
PN I IO-86-O8-07-076 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
PN113-87-09•23-O41 VOLUME 2 REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
PN11387-12-31-043 VOLUME 2 GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN VIOLATIONS INVOLVING PROPOSED STATE REVISIONS
PH165-84-O1-09-012 VOLUME I INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY O Il COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART 0
PN I6 S-85-O5-09-015 VOLUME I IMPROVED NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(NSR/PSO) PROGRAM TRANSFER
PN169A-86-11-1O-OO2 VOLUME 2 VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PUNS (SIP’S)--VISIBILITT SIP’S
PART II
PN1fl-78-O8-O4-0O4 VOLUME I REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACY REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINNENT AREAS
PN 172-79-01-16-012 VOLUME 1 CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS - REVISED ENCLOSURE
PN I72-83-ll-02-044 VOLUME I COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
(FR CITATION)
PN172-84-O1-20-045 VOLUME 1 AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS SIP REVISION
POL I CT
PN1T2-8709-09-055 VOLUME 2 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACY
PN172-38-09-07-064 VOLUME 2 AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PUNS COMPLIANCE
WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART 0 AND SECTION 110 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT (FR CITATION)

-------
31
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
VOLUME I PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
VOLUME I PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES (FR CITATION)
VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
SUMMARY OF NAAQS INTERPRETATION
BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING 502 NAAQS
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY FROM CRAIG POTTER ON THE INDIANA $02 SIP
RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S) FOR S02
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE
TRANSMITTAL OF S02 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P 50) APPLICABILITY TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR (TRS)
COMPOUNDS
VOLUME I (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ON SOLVENT REACTIVITIES)
VOLUME I CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACT IVITIES
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO THE
100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
‘ SOOT BLOWING
PN11 I E -82- 05-07-002 VOUJcE 1 RESTATEMENT OF GUIDANCE ON EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SOOT BLOWING
‘ SOURCE DEFINITION
PN165-87-02-27-017 VOLUME 2 PLANTVIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON FLUID MODEL DEMONSTRATIONS FOR DETERMINING GEP STACK HEIGHT IN
COMPLEX TERRAIN
VOLUME 1 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON IMPLEMENTING THE REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATION
VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS - EXCEPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS
ON CREDIT FOR MERGED STACKS
NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
VOLUME SUBJECT
Page No.
09/01/89
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
PH 175-80-06-12-008
PH 175-80-06-23-009
** SITE-SPECIFIC RACT LIMITS
PH 172-86-02-28-052
a’ 502 SIPS
PHI 10-78-02-24-002
PN1 10-83-05-27-064
PHi 10-86-03-28-073
PHI 1O-86-O5•23-O75
PN I 1O-86 -12•1O-078
PHi 10-87-07-29-086
PHi 13-88-07-05-051
PN165-89-04- 10-041
a’ SOLVENT REACTIVITY
PN11O-80-07-22 -067
PH 172-79-05-25-017
a’ SOLVENT REGULATIONS
PN I7’2-79- 06-ZO-018
PNI72-79- 12-12- 023
PHi 72-80-07-02-029
PN172-86- 10-30-053
VOLUME 1
VOLUME I
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME I
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 2
a’ STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
PN123-8S-09- 19-006
PN1Z3 -85-10- 10-007
PH 123-85-10-28-008

-------
Page No. 32
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTESCOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
PN12385-10-28-009 VOLUME 1 IMPLEMENTATION OF STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS PRESUMPTIVE NSPS EMISSION
LIMIT FOR FLUID MODELING STACKS ABOVE FORMULA GEP HEIGHT
PN123•85-1O-28-O1O VOLUME I DETERMINING STACK HEIGHTS “IN EXISTENCE” BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1970
PN 123-86-0211011 VOLUME 2 PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR CO4PLIANCE WITH
REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGUUTIONS
PN1Z3-8602-11012 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PLANTS WITH “TALL STACKS” AND OTHER PROHIBITED DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
PN123-87-09-03-013 VOLUME 2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
PN123-87-1O-O9-014 VOLUME 2 PROCESSING OF STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
Pw123-88-O1-07-O1S VOLUME 2 STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (FR CITATION)
PN123-88-05-17O16 VOLUME 2 APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY ACTIONS
PN1Z3-89- 04-20-017 VOLUME 2 LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. EMISON
STATE BOARDS
PN1 IO-78-02-24-002 VOLUME I CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
STORAGE TANKS
PN172-81-02 06-036 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
SURROGATE AIR QUALITY DATA
PH107-85•1O-08 -O1O VOLUME I OZONE AIR QUALITY DATA FOR REDESIGNATIONS
** SURVEILLANCE ACTIONS
PW114-81-05-13 -OOZ VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL INSPECTIONS OF STATIONARY SOURCES -
AMENDED GUIDANCE
PN12O-80- 09-12-OO1 VOLUME I PRIORITIES FOR ISSUING NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE
** TANK TRUCK UNLOADING
PN172-81-02 -06-036 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
— TEMP EMERGENCY SIP SUSPENSIONS
PN1 IO-80-O1-10-023A VOLUME I ALTERNATE PROCEDURE FOR SECTION 110(F) RELIEF IN LOCALIZED, SHORT TERM
ENERGY EMERGENCIES
** TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
PN113-86-04-11-028 VOLUME 2 TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDANCE
PN1 TZ-86- 02-28-O52 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
** TOXIC SUBSTANCES
PN11O-82-11-24-061 VOLUME 1 SIP ACTIONS AND TOXIC POLLUTANTS
PN16S-87-0922- 021 VOLUME 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY P50 REMAND

-------
Page No. 33
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLiCY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER vOLljIIE SUBJECT
PN16 S•88-07-28-033 VOLUME 2 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (P 50) REMAND
TRADE SECRETS
PN114-83-12-15-003 VOLUME I EXECUTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS UNDER SECTIOII 114 OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY
PN1 IO-85-12•16-072 VOLUME I BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
PN1 1086-04-11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
• TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY (LAER)
PN165-88 -08 -29-034 VOLUME 2 TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY IN DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE
(LAER)
TRANSPORT VALUES - OXIDANT
PN172-78-08-06-004 VOLUME I RECUIRENENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN17 Z-78 -1O-26-O09 VOLUME 1 OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
‘ TRANSPORTATION GRANTS
PN17 S -79-O2-12- 0O4 VOLUME I REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF SECTION
175 GRANT APPLICATIONS
‘ TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
PN11078-02 - 24 -O02 VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PN172•78-06• 14 -026 VOLUME 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGARDING THE INTEGRATION OF
TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PUNNING
PN172 -81-O5-21-038 VOLUME 1 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE SIP GUIDANCE INDEX
PN I72 -81 -O1-22-039 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS-APPROVAL OF 1982 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN
REVISIONS FOR AREAS NEEDING AN ATTAINMENT DATE EXTENSION (FR CITATION)
PN17 S•80- 06-12-008 VOLUME I PROCEDURES FOR CONFORMANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PUNS, PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
WITH CLEAN AIR ACT STATE IMPLEMENTATION PUNS
PN17S-80-06 -23-009 VOLUME 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSPORTATION
REVISION PROCESS: EXPANDED GUIDELINES CFR CITATION)
TRICHLOROETHANE
PNI7Z-7’8-08-24-0 06 VOLUME 1 CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
UMTA
PN1T S-79-02-12-004 VOLUME 1 REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF SECTION
175 GRANT APPLICATIONS

-------
Page No. 34
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
‘ UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
PN I14-8409- 06-0O4 VOLUME 1 FINAL GUIDANCE ON USE OF UNANNOUNCED INSPECTIONS
UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
PN107•83- 04-21-0 08 VOLUME 1 SECTION 107 DESIGNATION POLICY SU)O(ARY
‘ VAPOR RECOVERY
PN172-78-06-30-003 VOLUME 1 VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979
SIP
PN172-81-02-06-O36 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
— — VINYL CHLORIDE
PN112-8407-110O5 VOLUME 1 VINYL CHLORIDE NESHAP ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
‘ VINYL COATINGS
PPI1T2-85-07-O2-O51 V0.UNE 1 RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CO POUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PRODUCTS
“ VISIBILITY PROTECTION
PN I69A-85-03-2 5O01 VOLUME I VISIBILITY MONITORING STRATEGY REQUIREMENTS
PN I69A-86-111O002 VOLUME 2 VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S)--VISI3ILITY SIP’S
PART I!
** VISIBLE EMISSIONS
PN113•82-O5- 04•013 VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE ON POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF yE VIOLATIONS AGAINST SOURCES IJHICH
ARE MEETING AN APPLICABLE MASS EMISSION STANDARD
** VOC BASELINE YEAR
PN1T2-86-02-28- 052 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
VOC CONPL lANCE
PN1 I3-87-07-06•038 VOLUME 2 SMALL VOC SOURCE CCP PLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
PNI I3 -8?-O9-11-040 VOLUME 2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
C PL lANCE STRATEGY
PN172-85- 04-25-05 0 VOLUME 1 CONSIDERATION OF ORGANISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC C PGJMDS (VOC) C 1PLIA1ICE
CALCULATIONS
PN172•35-O7 - 02 -Q51 VOLUME I RESIDUAL VOLATILE ORGANIC CONPOUND (VOC) CONTAINED IN COATING LINE
PR UCTS
PNIT2-86•02-28-0 52 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PN IT2 -89-03-16 - 071 VOLUME 2 C 1PLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC CORPOUNDS (VOC’s)

-------
Page No. 35
ccioi ia
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOTEBOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
• VOC CONTROLS
PNI IO-78-02-24-OOZ VOLUME I CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1919 SIP REVISIONS
PN11O-80 0731039 VOLUME 1 APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES (CTGS) TO THE AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTUR I HG INDUSTRY
PN11O-80-08- 04- 040 VOLUME I APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING, FABRIC COATING, AND GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
PN I1O-77-O?•08-O65 VOLUME I (CITATION OF FR NOTICE ENTITLED REC 1ENOED POLICY ON CONTROL OF VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS”)
PN11O-85• 08 -27-O71 VOLUME I CLASSIFICATION OF BENZENE AS A VOC
PM11O-8S-12-16-O7 VOLUME 1 BASELINE TIME PERIODS FOR VOC TRANSFER EFFICIENCY CREDITS
PN11O -86 -04•11-074 VOLUME 2 RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE
PIi1IO-B6-O8-07-076 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR VOC
SOURCES
PNI1O-8701 08-079 VOLUME 2 CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
PN I IO-87- 04-17-081 VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOC
PN I1O-87 -07-21- 089 VOLUME 2 DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCs)
PN113-85-O4-24-023 VOLUME 1 ACHIEVING VOC COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTOR FACILITIES
PN1138601-17O2? VOLUME 2 ISSUES 3(E) AND 5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN113 -86 -O8-O1- 032 VOLUME 2 POLICY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LOW-SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY SCHEDULES IN CLEAN
AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
PN165-85-06-28-023 VOLUME 2 MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
PN165-88- 04 -25-030 VOLUME 2 L.AER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHTDUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
PN172-78-O3-1O-OO2 VOLUME 1 EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
PN172-79- 03-06 -014 VOLUME 1 CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
PNI7Z-79-05 -25-017 VOLUME I CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT
REACTIVITIES
PN1T2-79- 08 -2 1-019 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS SUPPLEMENT (ON
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACT
REGULATIONS)
PN17Z-79- 08-22-020 VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACY
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPaJNDS(VOC
PN17’2-79-12-12-O23 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
PN172-8 0-06-16-027 VOLUME 1 GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
PN172 -8 0-OT-OZ-029 VOLUME 1 EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DEGREASERS
PN172-8 0-12-O1 -033 VOLUME 1 REVISED SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
PN17Z-81-O2O6 036 VOLUME 1 STORAGE TANK VAPOR BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AT SYNTHESIZED PHARMACEUTICAL
PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE FACILITIES
PN172 -84-O1-20- 045 VOLUME I AVERAGING TIMES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITS - SIP REVISION
POLICY
PN172-84-09-14-O48 VOLUME 1 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) TEST METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)

-------
Page No. 36
09 /01 /89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT NOThOOK DOCUMENT
NUMBER VOLUME SUBJECT
VOLUME I CONNECTICUT VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) ISSUES
VOLUME I COSISIDERATION OF ORGAMISOLS IN VOLATILE ORGANIC COQUINDS (VOC) COMPLIANCE
CALCULATIONS
VOLUME 2 EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND SOURCES
VOLUME 2 SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
VOLUME 2 LETTER TO LEONARD LEDSETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL EMISSIONS FOR
VOC REGULATIONS
TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRCOUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
2 BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
2 CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S)
VOLUME 1 CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
VOLUME 1 GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR
NONATTAINMENT AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES) (FR
CITATION)
VOLUME 1 VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS FOR METHYL CHLOROFORM
COSI ENTS 0 )1 AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
N IFICATIONS TO RECOS 1ENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAMBLE
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NOSIATTAINMEJIT
REVISED SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE
REGULATIONS)
VOLUME I STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCXEDULES FOR SUBMITTING RACT
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPQJNDS(VOC)
VOLUME 1 MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRCOUCTS dO - EMISSION LIMITS FOR COATING
OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
VOLUME I COMPLIANCE WITH VOC EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR CAN COATING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 1 COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR RACT APPLICATION TO LEAKS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY
EQUIPMENT
VOLUME 1 RACT FOR SPECIALTY PRINTING OPERATIONS
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME 2
VOLUME
VOLUME
VOLUME
PM172-84-12-21- 049
PN17Z-85-06-25-05 0
PN172-87- 06-25-054
P 1 1172-86-09-29-058
PN172-87-12-1O-O6 0
PH 172-88-05-27-061
P11172-88-08-23-063
P11172-88-12-16-067
P11172-89-02-15-070
P11172-89-04-03-072
P11112-89-04-07-073
PHI 72-89-OS - 25-075
P11172-89-07-06-076
‘ VOC RACT
PN1 10-78-02-24-002
PN11O-79-09-17-02O
PN172-7806 -30-003
PN17278-08 -04-O04
PN1 72-78-08-24-006
PN172-78-10- 06-008
PN172 -79-06-20-018
PN172-79-08-21-019
PN172-79-08-22-020
PN 172-80-09-03-030
P11 172-80-11-20-032
P11172-80-12-02-034
P11172-80-12-02-035
SIP
VOLUME 1
VOLUME 1
VOLUME I
VOLLIIE I
VOLUME I
METAl. CLEANING
FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING aN
AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON
ORGANIC CHEMICAL RACY
PN172-89-07-06-076
VOLUME 2 AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S)

-------
Page No.
09101/89
37
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE HOTE8 GK
SUBJECT INDEX
DOCUMENT
NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
VOtUI4E
SUBJECT
VOC RECORDKEEPING
PN11086 04-11074
VOLUME 2
RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED
BY THE REGIO IAL OFFICES AND OEPAATMENT
OF JUSTICE
VOC TEST METHODS
P II11O-860411074
VOLUME 2
RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED
OF JUSTICE
BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT
PN172-84-O9-1 O48
VOLUME 1
VOLATILE ORGANIC CONPOUND (VOC) TEST
CATEGORIES IN GROUPS I, II, AND III
METHODS OR PROCEDURES FOR SOURCE
CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES (CTGS)
° VOC WASTE DISPOSAL
Pw lfl-58•12-16- 067
VOLUME 2
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION

-------
/ ?- Are4 be6ia 4 n.. 3

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRANS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 107
‘‘‘t’’ %
—I
* CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 107
* PN1O7—87—04—06—011
OZONE REDESIGNATION POLICY
* PN1O7—86—04—11—012
REQUIRED MON:TORING PERIOD FOR OZCUE REDESIGNATION IN UNCLASS IED
.REAS
*
: ;.::: ;c:::

LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY ON REDESIGNATION OF 2 INDIANA COUNTIES

-------
• 7_ p_ —o_ -
V
UM ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECflON AGENC’:
WASHfl GTQN. ‘ . 46O
“4 au,c ctG’

— a -
,• - -•
cmuo
A . D R O AT1OW
Ms. 9 aicy A. Maloley
Comr issioner, Indiana Departme’ t
of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
n ianapolis, Indiana 46206—6015
Dear Ms. Maloley:
This s n response to your February 23, 1988, letter to
Lee Thomas regaraing tha Znvironmerit.al ?rotect on Ager’cy’s (E?.Ys)
‘1nterpretat or! cf the Mitchell—Conte Amendment and the effect it may have
on the redes’gnation of St. Joseph and Elkhart Counties i Indiana.
As you point out in your letter, EPA d propose, on July 22,
1986 (El FR 26272), tc redesignate St. Joseph and Elkhart Counties
to attainr ent. That proposal, however, was centingent on Indiana demon-
strating tnat the requirements of EPA’s redesi jnation policy were fulfilled,
including the requirenent tnat the State implementation plan for the ar!a
be fully tmDlementea. Since EPA has not completed its deliberations with
regard to the eff.:t of the Mitchell—Conte Amendment, future decisions
riight alter rtions of my answer; however, I believe I can still respond
ade ’ rel y ’u cuestlons at this time.
n response c your f t question, I can assure you that we o not
ir’ er ret the Amendment to mean that EPA’s current redesignation policy
a: t e n overturnec . A you are probably aware, that policy re uir s, in
-it r, to measured attainrner t Ievcl air quality, evijence ‘that : ie
appro .lan ftr t a’ea Ias beei implemented and Ct it, conse esstly ,
missi3n re&iction t t l d to the improvement In air q 1it . ire sufficient,
permanent ani enforcea:, . The existing policy ad re se E! ’ :or cern
that the pla ’rr g effu-t €!v1S1ct In the Clean Mr Act b 1i carried
c ut in order to ersure thii t’ie iatfonal amb 4 ent air ouali ., stan ards
are attained id Tne EPA’s redesignat r :“ icy ;r-v es an
dssurance of attair me. t and r J ,b enafl e that air quality data . one
cannot provide.
In .‘ sp n e to your r.d thir.. •L: 4 nn , t ei e’t tc
reet aluate any’ arees prese’itly c si:ritea nor 1 3t -i’•.2nt cr )Jrp se
f redesi r 1 atina them to attainment ur der ti’e :hell—C ,te Ar: diner.t.
‘ 1 iations of additional areds to nonatt n er. ill be promulgated
C ? Part 81, alon witn the existirg non ;tei.iment designations.

-------
2
Finally, in response to your fourth question, we expect actions on
current requests for redesignations from nonattainment to attainment to
proceed Independently of any action taken under the Mitchell—Conte
Amendment. Thus, the Mitchell—Conte Amendment will not delay action on
Indiana’s request for St. Joseph and Elkhart Counties.
I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this
information will be helpful to you.
Sincerely,
CLAy 70*
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation

-------
P11 107-87-04-06-013
1O
UMTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
% 1 2 . i Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
APR 6 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ozone Redesignation Por y
FROM: Gerald A. Emlson
Office of Air ality Planning and Standards (MO—la)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, I
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VU, VIII, X
Recently, Region V responded to questions froiu the State of
Michigan regarding the Envirorinental Protection Agency’s ozone
redesignation policy. My staff and the Office of General Counsel
assisted in preparing that response.
That letter, which I have attached for your information and use,
addresses many concerns about redesignations previously encountered in
day-to-day review of these actions at Headquarters. The letter supple-
ments the Sheldon Meyers April 21 , 1983, redeslgnation policy guidance.
It should be utilized by Regional staff when they discuss doc unentation
requirements with their States and review requests for redesignatlons.
Also attached Is boilerplate language that should be inserted into
all final Federal Register notices on ozone redesignations. This language
serves notice that redesignations are not to be used as justification for
noncompliance or regulation relaxations.
4

-------
—2—
If you have any questions regarding the attached correspondence,
please contact Tom Helms at FTS 629-5526.
AttacPvnents
cc: R. Campbell
1. Helms
J. Silvasi
B. Beal
P. Wyckoff
L. Wilson
J. Rasnic
S. Hitte
R. Ossias

-------
OZONE REDESLGNATION BOILERPLATE
Control Strategy Implementation
Ozone State implementation plans (SIP’s) are designed to satisfy the
requirements of Part D of the Clean Air Act and to provide for attatrinent and
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. This redesignation today should not be
interpreted as authorizing the State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the
VOC emission limitations and restrictions contained in the approved ozone
SIP. Changes to ozone SIP VOC regulations rendering them less stringent
than those contained In the EPA approved plan cannot be made unless a revised
plan for attainment and maintenance Is submitted to and approved by EPA.
Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, and changes could result in both a
finding of nonimplenentatlon [ section 173(b) of the Clean Air Act] and in a
SIP deficiency call made pursuant to section 11O(a)(2)(H) of the Clean Air
Act.

-------
tO 37•4
- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S REGIONS
230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
1 6 MAR 198Z REPLY ATTV TION
Robert P. Miller, Chief
Air Quality Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Dear M,/ er: ,7 •),
This is In response to your November 20, 1986, request for ozone redesignatlon
policy guidance. In that request, you raised a number of significant policy
questions, which are addressed in an attachment. Because the questions are of
interest from the perspective of national ozone redesignation policy, Region V
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requested input from USEPA’s
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). This input is reflected
in the responses to your questions.
As you read the attached responses please keep In mind the following underlying
rationale. Because of the imprecise nature of the various control strategy
demonstration techniques commonly utilized in ozone implementation plans, USEPA
has prescribed basic control measure requir nents (such as RACT I, RACT U,
etc.) which are conmion to nonattainment areas with similar ozone forming poten-
tial. USEPA’s redesignatlon policy Is founded on the principle that Improvements
in air quality must be related to the permanent and enforceable implementation
of these control measures. Without actual implementation there is no assurance
that the air quality will remain at its improved level.
Likewise, redesignation by itself cannot provide the means by which sources can
avoid implementing, or discontinue implementing, any required control measure.
Again, in the absence of a demonstration utilizing photochemical dispersion
— modeling, nonimplementatlon of a portion of USEPA’s basic control measure re-
quirements creates an unacceptable degree of uncertainty that measured improve-
ments in air quality will be sustained.
If you have any questions on the enclosed responses, please contact Joseph
Paisie at 312/886—6055 or Carl Nash at 312/886—6030.
Sincerely yours,

David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division (5ARD-26)
Attachment
cc: Susan Mortell, MIDOT
Charles Hersey, SEMCOG

-------
Att achrne n t
1(A):
Question:
What conditions constitute a °fully approved” State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for a state which has submitted a redesignation request?
Response:
A fully approved SIP is one which contains the appropriate measures for the
type of area involved (nonextension, extension, or SIP—cafl) and which has
undergone final , unconditional rulemaking In the Federal Register .
This final rulemaking will have included approval of the: demonstration of
attainment; maintenance convnitinents (including acceptable provisions for new
source review); and control strategy. In order to have been approved, a con-
trol strategy must have included:
o For existing stationary sources, Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT), defined as:
Categories I and II In all nonattainment areas; and, In addition
Category III and non-Control Technology Guideline (CTG) RACT on major
sources in extension and post-1982 SIP-call areas
o Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in extension areas and SIP-call
areas; and
0 Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (t/M):
00 required in all ozone and carbon monoxide extension areas.
00 requIred In post-1982 SIP-call areas where attainment of the ozone standard
by December 31, 1987 necessitated the adoption of an tiM connitment.

-------
2
1(B):
Questi on:
In the case of extension areas like the Detroit metropolitan area, does “fully
approved” necessarily mean that the RACT III and major non-CTG rules must be
adopted and submitted to the LJSEPA?
Response
Yes. The Detroit metrupolitan area Is an extension area for ozone. Based on
policy published in the Federal Register on January 22, 1981 (46 FR 7182), the
SIP must contain acceptable RACT regulations for Category III and major non-CTG
sources.
Question:
Does “fully approved” mean that the RACT II I and major non-CTG rules must be
approved (undergo final rulemaking In the Federal Register) prior to a USEPA
action to grant the redesignatlon of the Detroit metropolitan area?
Response:
Yes. RACT III and major non-CTG source RACT rules along with other control
measures required in the 1982 SIP revision must be given final approval by
USEPA in the Federal Register before USEPA can approve the redesignation of the
Detroit area. In addition, the control strategy, including RACT III and major
non-CIG RACT controls must be implemented before USEPA can approve the redesig-
nation of the Detroit area.
Question:
In generating approval of a redesignatiori request, Is It necessary that the
RACT III and ina.jor non—CTG rules provide for VOC reductions prior to
December 31, 1987? -
Response:
Mo. However, compliance after 1987 will delay approval of the redesignation
request because USEPA will not approve the redesignatlon prior to the
implementation of the entire control strategy. Sources which have never
complied (other than those with enforceable compliance schedules), or
non—implemented mobile source control measures, Including vehicle I/M
where required, may constitute sufficient justification for USEPA to
disapprove or delay a redesignation request. In addition, coninitting to
post—1987 deadlines could delay approval of the SIP revision and, hence,
approval of the redesignation request.

-------
3
1(C):
Question:
Under what scenarios, if any, might the 1982 ozone SIP for Detroit be fully
approved without the adoption and submittal of the RACT III and major non-CTG
rules?
Response:
SIP approval policy (46 FR 7182) for ozone extension areas, such as the
Detroit nonattainment area, requires the inclusion of RACT regulations
for Category III and major non-CTG sources In the SIP. The only scenario
under which a 1982 SIP submittal might be fully approved without RACT III
and major non-CTG source control rules would be where the SIP involved
the use of acceptable photochemical dispersion modeling techniques to
demonstrate that less than full RACT implementation Is sufficient to
attain and maintain the ozone standard. However, the photochemical
dispersion modeling results must demonstrate that partial RACT implementation,
either source category exemptions or specific source/facility exemptions,
will not interefere with expeditious attainment of the ozone standard.
Insufficient data exist for the Detroit area to support the use of
photochemical dispersion modeling techniques. It would take 3 to 4 years
to acquire such data, and this time delay would not provide for expeditious
attainment of the ozone standard. Therefore, RACT III and major non—CTG
source control rules are required in the Detroit area.
11(A):
Question:
What are the prerequisites or qualifications that are to be considered by
USEPA staff in the determination of whether or not a SIP has been “finally
implemented”?
Response
On occasion, USEPA processing of a redesignation request is delayed by
questions regarding the basis for the redesignation, In order to provide
for timely evaluation and processing, it is suggested that prior to
submitting a redesignation request, the State review all available records
to confirm that:
1. All stationary sources affected by RACT regulations (including major
non—CTG sources) have either installed and are operating RACT controls
or are on an enforceable coinpi lance schedule to do so.
2. All TCMs committed to in the SIP have been implemented.

-------
4
3. A RACT level I/M program, where required, has been implemented.
4. Acceptable provisions exist in the SIP and are being implemented
to provide for new source review, particularly, proper use of offsets
as required under section 173 of the Clean Air Act and proper track-
ing of use of growth allowances previously approved by USEPA.
The redesignation request should address the extent of control implementation
with as much documentation as possible. USEPA will review all available
documentation, including documentation already on file with USEPA, to assess
the completeness of control implementation.
11(B):
Question:
What Nevidencel is required by the USEPA to demonstrate that “the approved
control strategy has been fully implemented”?
Response:
Again, In order to avoid delays which may occur due to questions about
the basis of the redesignation, it is suggested that the State review the
source inspection and compliance records on file for all stationary
sources affected by RACT regulations. This review should confirm that
all affected sources have either installed and are operating RACT controls
or are on an enforceable compliance schedule. As part of the redesignatlon
request, the State should provide a summary of the results of the records
review. The redesignation submittal should note the records reviewed and
the results of the review with particular note made of sources that have
not installed RACT controls. All on-file records reviewed In this process
should be made available for USEPA review during future State program
audits.
Local agencies responsible for 1CM implementation should provide a review
of SIP 1CM conr itments and the status of 1CM implementatIon by project.
The review should be done with as much project-specificity as the SIP.
This review should be supplied with the redesi nation request.
The agencies responsible for the vehicle I/Il program, where required for
SIP approval, should review the current status of the I/M program. This
review should suam ar1ze the requirements of TIM regulations and should
provide sufficient test data to demonstrate what emission reduction the
T/M program is currently achieving. In addition, the redesignation
submittal should include a State commitment to continue TIM implementation
throughout the time period con iiitted in the SIP.
In order to provide assurance that the improved air quality levels will be
maintained, base year (pre-control) and current VOC emissions and operating
rates (from an up-to-date stationary source inventory) should be summarized.
This data should then be examined for evidence of economic down—turn.
The causes of emissions changes from the base year should be well documented.

-------
5
11(C):
Question:
What criteria will be used by the USEPA in the determination of whether or
not a VOC source is “in compliance with the enforceable SIP measures? t ’
Response:
It is the primary responsibility of the State to review its source control
regulations and the extent to which all sources comply with these or have
enforceable compliance schedules. The State must certify In Its
redesignation, request the status of source compliance, itemizing the
sources that have not installed RACT controls.
The USEPA will use all data available to It to verify the State’s claims
of compliance. The data to be reviewed by USEPA may come from such
sources as: State quarterly compliance reports; significant violators
lists; compliance data system reports; audit reviews; 114 letter responses;
and source inspection reports.
11(D):
Question:
What specific VOC sources need to be verified in compliance? All sources
which are subject to RACT rules? Only major sources?
Wesponse:
As previously suggested, in order to ensure that the evaluation and
processing of the redesignation request will proceed smoothly, all sources
subject to RACT rules should be verified as either having implemented the
provisions of the rules or as being on an acceptable, enforceable mechanism
for ensuring Implementation.
11(E):
Question:
What “information must be presented for VOC sources In a state’s demonstration
of compliance?
Response:
See the responses CO 4ue tiQfl 11(B) and 11(C) above.

-------
6
11(F):
Question:
In the case of the Detroit metropolitan area, do the VOC sources subject to
the RACT III and major non-CIG rules need to be verified in compliance?
Response:
Yes. See the responses to 1(A) and 1(C).
111(A):
Question:
What criteria will be used by the USEPA to determine whether or not the air
quality of a particular regional area will exhibit continued attainment for
ozone in the future, i.e., maintenance of the standard?
Response:
In some areas examined by USEPA for long term ozone strategy effectiveness,
growth has outstripped reductions from current programs. Therefore, in
its redesignation request, the State should address whether there Is reason
to believe that actual VOC emissions Increases In the area due to source
growth or recovery from economic downturn have exceeded or will exceed those
assumed in the SIP. Any controls to be implemented in the future should
also be discussed. Implementation of the provisions for new source
review, particularly the use of offsets and growth allowances should be
addressed.
Question:
If a nonattainment area would demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the
standard, could mobile source emissions [ reductions assumed be replaced or
enhanced by stationary source emission reductions (i.e., reductions from an
I/Il program being substituted for by emission reductions from stage II vapor
recovery or other legally enforceable program)?
Response:
Substitution of non—required control measures for required control measures
(other than 1/M) is allowed only in those situations involving emissions
trading or where acceptable photochemical dispersion modeling results
demonstrate that such control ubStitUtiOfl will not jeopardize expeditious
attainment of the ozone standard. The use of city-specific EKMA to make
such a demonstration will not be acceptable. In nonattainment areas
lacking a demonstration, such as Detroit, emission trades are rigidly
constrained by the provisions of EPA’s emission trading policy (51 FR
43814, December 4, 1986). Finally, because it is required by law in
extension areas, other measures cannot be substituted for 1/Il.

-------
7
111(B)
Question:
What criteria will be used by USEPA to determine if the growth factor used
to predict anticipated source emissions for a regional area are complete
and reasonable.
Response:
USEPA has no such criteria. The growth/projection factors will be evaluated
on a case -by-case basis. The State should document the bases for the growth
factors to the extent possible. In the review of the factors, USEPA will
review all available data including previously submitted SIPs and emissions
documentation.

-------
PN 107-86-04-11-012
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Parke North Carolina 2771 1
4(
APR 1 1 iS 6
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Required Monitoring Period for one RedeslgnatlQl% in
Unclassified Areas
FROM: Darryl 0. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Developme Div on
TO: William B. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region Vi
This is in response to your January 31, 1986, m norandum to me regariling
the acceptability of redesignating an unclassiuied M area to I attainmentN for
ozone based on short—term (e.g., 4 or 6 months) monitoring. Tom Helms and his
staff discussed this matter In the interim with Jack Divita and his staff.
First of all, let me point out that for all of the purposes hsted in
section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Mr t ——including transportation planning,
Part 0, and Part C—-section iO7(d)(1)(E) considers unclasslfiable ozone areas
to be the same as attainment areas. There is no distinction made in
40 CFR Part 81 between such areas. Specifically, In Part 81, h$attaincnentN
and ‘ unclassified areas are jointly grouped into the category “cannot be
classified or better than national standards? Therefore, no formal
redesignatiOn or differentiation can occur.
Of course, short—term information on air quality in these “unclasslfied/ -
attainmentu areas can still be useful. Such data——which meet quality assurance
criteria and which show attainment of the ozone standard——can be sufficient
proof that SIP planning Is not required in the area for which the data are
considered representative. Also, such data canbe used to satisfy P 50 pre—
construction monitoring requir efltS. Where such data are used to determine
the need for SIP planning, two questions arise, for which the PSO monitoring
guidelines (EPA 45O/4-8O-O12, Nov uber 1980, pages 8—9) suggest a resolution:
1) In areas presently lacking air quality data or where present data
are not geographically representative, what is the minimum monitoring period
acceptable to support a finding that no SIP planning is necessary?
The 4-month minimum monitoring period (June-September) described
in the PSD guidelines must be extended if historical ozone data TM indicate
that maximum concentrations have occurred outside that period. Since there
were no monitors previously in the unclassified area, the term historical
ozone data” means data from other locations. Thus, at the very least,

-------
—2—
historical data from any urbanized area in the general vicinity of the site
in question should be examined. If such data indicate the occurrence of a
yearly maximtmi outside the June-Septenber range the monitoring period must
e extended to Include the month in which the maximum occurred and all
intervening months.
2) If the monitor Is not peruianent, how long after the site Is
discontinued can the data be used to support a finding that SIP planning
Is not necessary?
The PSD monitoring guidelines Indicate that the data would be considerec
representative for a period of 3 years provided that ozone—forming enisslons
in the Immediate area and/or any adjacent urban area do not increase sub-
stantially over that time frame.
I would like to stress that the above discussion pertains only to
areas designated as ucannot be classified or better than national standards
for ozone and that the requirements for redesignating nonattainment areas
remain as discussed in previous memorandums ——3 years of air quality data,
fully Implemented plan, etc.
If you or your staff have any questions, please give Tom Helms a c .
(FTS—629-5526) or contact Ray Vogel or Larry Wilson of his staff.
cc: R. Campbell
R. Rhoads
1. Helms
R. Vogel
L. Wilson

-------

-------
Page No. 1
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CM SECTION 110
(VOLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 110
* PN11O-86-03-28-073
BLOCK AVERAGES IN IMPLEMENTING S02 NAAQS
* PN1IO-86-04-11-074
RESPONSES TO FIVE VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
* PN11O-86-05-23-075
LETTER TO NANCY MALOLEY FROM CRAIG POTTER ON THE INDIANA SO2 SIP
* PN11O-86-08-07-076
POLICY ON SIP REVISIONS REQUESTING COMPLIANCE DATE EXTENSIONS FOR
VOC SOURCES
* PNI1O-86-12-04-077
EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY STATEMENT (CITATION)
PNI1 O-86-12-IO-078
RULEMAKING ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S) FOR SO2
* PNI1O-87-O1-08-079
CLARIFICATION OF SEASONAL VOC CONTROL POLICY
* PN11O-87-O1-20-080
DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
* PNIIO-87-04-17-081
DEFINITION OF VOC
* PNI1O-87-04-30-082
AMBIENT AIR
* PNI1O-87-04-30-083
AMBIENT AIR
* PNI1O-87-07-29-084
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE
* PN11O-87-08-I1-085
PROCESSING OF PARTICULATE MATTER STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
REVISIONS
* PN11O-87-09-21-086
AMBIENT AIR DEFINITION

-------
Page No. 2
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 110
(VOLUME 2)
* P14110-87-05-11-088
GUIDANCE ON ACCOUNTING FOR TRENDS IN PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION
AND AIR QUALITY DATA
* PN11O-87-07-21-089
DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC’s)
* P14110-87-08-11-090
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PM1O STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’s)
* PN1IO-87-1O-02-091
CLARIFICATION OF IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES FOR PM1O NATIONAL
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)
* P14110-87-12-23-092
EXPANDED USE OF DIRECT FINAL SIP PROCESSING
* PN1IO-88-03-18-093
POLICY FOR DETERMINING COMPLETENESS OF SIP SUBMITTALS
* PNI1O-88-06-17-094
DEMONSTRATION OF “REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION CONDITIONS” FOR USE IN
“EXPECTED EXCEEDANCE” DETERMINATIONS
* PNI1O-88-06-27-095
GRANDFATHERING” OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISIONS
* PN11O-88.0805’095
IDENTIFYING AND EXPEDITING SIP REVISIONS THAT IMPACT THE
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
* P14110-88-09-06-097
PM1O SIP DEVELOPMENT: STATUS AND CONCERNS
* PNIIO-88-11-04-098
GUIDANCE ON LONG-TERM NONATTAINMENT OF THE PM1O STANDARDS
* P1 1110-88-11-21-099
REVISION TO POLICY ON THE USE OF PM1O MEASUREMENT DATA
* P14110-89-01-19-100
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMPLETENESS REVIEW (FR CITATION)
* PN11O-B9-O1-19-iO1
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PROCESSING REFORM (FR CITATION)

-------
Page No. 3
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CM SECTION 110
(VOLUME 2)
* PNIIO-89-01-30-102
PROCEDURES FOR LETTER NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINOR SIP ACTIONS
* PN11O-89-06-30-103
RESPONSE TO PM1O CONTROL STRATEGY ISSUES

-------
J. Calcagni
- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
/ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
L
PN 110-89-06-30-103
jUti 30
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to PM-1O Control Strate y Issues
FROM: I Gerald A. Emison, Director
tO\Office of Air Quality Planning and Sta dards (MD-b)
TO: Irwin 1. Dicksteln, Director
Air and Toxics Division, Region VIII
As you know, the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) is
currently providing technical support to Region VIII and the State of Utat- In
response to their specific requests for assistance in the preparation of the
Utah PM-lO State implementation plan (SIP). On June 2, you wrote to me
identifying six issues which need resolution In order for Utah to proceed wit
development of the SIP. The following is OAQPS’ response to those questions:
Ia. How should secondary particulates be evaluated for modeling and control
strategies?
Section 4.3.1 of the PM-IC SIP Development Guideline states that no model
reconinended for regulatory use at this time handles secondary particulate or
other transformations In a manner suitable for SIP control strategy
demonstrations. Thus, any techniques to be used In this regard need to be
justified on a case-by-case basis. Our staffs have discussed the 4ay 10 State
of Utah proposal for assessing the Impacts of secondary particles formed by
emissions from Geneva Steel. While little detail has been provided, we agreed
with your staff that the proposed technique to add secondary particulate from
chemical mass balance (CMB) modeling to the primary PM-1O Impacts from
Industrial source complex modeling In proportion to the ratio of secondary to
primary particulates identified In the CMB source profile appears viable.
A procedure to use the results of this modeling analysis to develop a
control strategy for secondary particles must also be justified on a case-by-
case basis. My staff will coninent on Utah’s proposed techniques for control
strategy development when requested to do so by the Region.
lb. How much credit can be given to control strategies on assumptions of
source(s) contribution?
Credit will be based on the amount of emission reduction that can be
justified by the State in its SIP. The assumptions underlying the emission

-------
2
reductions would be different for each source category and, thus, would need
to be justified on a case-by-case basis. Discussion of credits for three
particular source categories is given in question #3 below. For sources with
stack test data, the effectiveness of the particular control device could be
used to estimate the post-control emissions and, thus, to determine the
emission reduction credits. The effectiveness assumptions should be based on
the best available information and post-control stack testing should be
required to verify the control effectiveness. In those cases where control
effectiveness values derived from AP-42 are deemed inappropriate for a
specific application, the State may, with appropriate ,justlficatlon and
Regional Office and emission factor clearinghouse concurrence, use a different
effectiveness value.
2. What should be the design value: modeled or monitored values?
Section 6.2 of the PM-b SIP Development Guideline states that the
preferred approach for estimating a design value Is through the use of an
applicable dispersion model corroborated by receptor models, any available
total suspended particulates data, and any available PM-1O data. It Is our
understanding that, for the most part, this approach is being attempted In the
Utah (Provo) PM-b SIP. If corroboration Is not possible, we reconinend that
the dispersion model be used except for periods of stagnation; for periods of
stagnation, monitored PM-1O data should be used to establish the design value.
3a. How much credit can be given to mandatory wood burning bans?
A Residential Wood Combustion Workshop was held by Region VIII and OAQPS
in March 1989 In Missoula, Montana. The supporting document for the workshop,
“Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures,”
provides the guidance for determining credits. The State of Utah had a
representative in attendance at the workshop.
The guidance document describes the reconinended features for mandatory
curtailment program elements. The essential elements Include: a public
awareness program, a curtailment program, and an enforcement program. As
stated In the document, good programs could receive as much as 50 percent
credit for wood burning stoves. This credit Is considered a starting point
and should be adjusted according to the quality of the programs implemented
and justification presented. The features which enhance or detract from the
effectiveness of programs are described in detail in the document. It is
Important that In the course of developing a curtailment program and
determining (applicable) credits that the State use the ‘Guidance Document for
Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures.’
3b. How much credit can be given to various street sanding/salting control
measures?
There is little quantitative information on the effectiveness of control
measures for street sanding and salting operations. Generally, the measures
would focus on reducing the amount of abrasive material used through improved

-------
3
planning and spreading methods, using better quality (e.g., more durable)
abrasives and more rapid and efficient cleanup. As you know, there is
currently an effort under way by the Colorado Department of Health to
investigate Street sanding control measures further. Also, OAQPS’ Emission
Standards Division is currently compiling information on the durability and
silt content of road abrasives. Results are expected in late 1989. Robin
Dunkins and Larry Elmore of my staff are preparing additional information on
the effectiveness of street sanding control measures which may be helpful
until these studies are complete. My staff will be In contact with Lee Hanley
to discuss this Information In early July.
3c. How much credit can be given to diesel Inspection/maintenance programs?
In previous conversations with my staff, Region VIII was referred to the
Office of Mobile Sources for assistance In determining credits for diesel
Inspection/maintenance. I understand that you have been In contact with them.
4. Will EPA accept a SIP with only compliance schedules and specific overall
emission reductions for the stationary source categories that have been
Identified as major contributors to P14-10 (e.g., not specifically defined
control measures)?
A SIP submitted to EPA for approval must meet the uCriteria for
Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions TM as delineated In the Federal
Register January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2141). One completeness criterion is that
the State has adopted the SIP. There is an exception for parallel processing;
however, EPA can review and propose to approve a SIP through parallel
processing, even though the State has not adopted the necessary regulations,
if the technical support criteria have been submitted. The technical support
information to be submitted include:
• identification of the affected sources (those to be controlled),
• quantification of the changes in allowable emissions from the
affected sources,
• procedures for determining compliance by the sources, and
• a demonstration that the P14-10 standards will be attained within
3 years If the affected sources comply with the new allowable
emission rates.
The EPA will give final approval to the SIP after the State has adopted the
necessary regulations. We understand that regulation adoption may require a
protracted period before final approval can be granted.
,5. What emission factor should be applied If such factor does not exist In
AP-42? Would the SIP have to be amended if, and when, AP-42 factors are
developed?

-------
4
Emission factors are useful tools that can be used to estimate average
emissions from categories of sources when developing emissions inventories for
geographic areas such as Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah. If factors are not
available in AP-42 for certain source categories, however, the following
alternative actions should be taken in order of priority to determine
representative emission rates.
a. Conduct source tests to characterize emissions. Tests may be
conducted by the source, provided that appropriate quality assurance
steps are undertaken. (This alternative may be employed even if
emission factors are available, but are disputed.)
b. Contact the EPA Emission Factor Clearinghouse If source testing
(alternative a) Is not practicable to determine If an unpublished
factor already exists or can be derived from existing data.
c. If an unpublished factor cannot be obtained, select a default
emission rate In consultation with the State (and the source, If
appropriate) that can be used until a factor Is developed by the
clearinghouse.
A SIP would not ordinarily have to be amended if AP-42 factors are
developed later. Factors are available in AP-42 or other EPA reports for
nearly all of the larger source categories Impacting an area. New factors
becoming available for smaller sources should not significantly Impact the SIP
control strategy. In the unlikely event that a new or revised factor could
significantly affect the SIP strategy, a case-by-case evaluation should be
made in consultation with OAQPS to determine whether a SIP revision Is
warranted. If such a condition occurs prior to the proposed SIP being
approved by EPA, a case-by-case determination should also be made as to
whether the SIP strategy needs to be adjusted. Various considerations,
including the existing P14-10 air quality or air quality trend In the vicinity
of the source(s), might affect the need for a SIP revision.
6. How does the State enforce P14-10 emissIon limits without a P14-10 stack
test method? Since PM-1O stack test methods currently under review do
not consider condensibles for compliance determinations, should the State
address condenslble P14-10 for stationary sources In Its attainment
strategy?
In accordance with the SIP Development Guideline, the State of Utah may
develop a P14-10 compliance stack test method based on the modified Method 5
procedure described in Appendix C of that guideline. The procedure is also
described in the Federal Register of June 6, 1989 (54 FR 24213) as proposed
EPA Reference Method 201A for measuring P14-10 emissions from stationary
sources. A variation of that method which moves the collecting filter from
‘Inside the stack to a heated enclosure outside of the stack may be used to
capture particulate matter that condenses above 120 degrees Celsius (120 C).
We understand that it may be necessary to regulate parti:ulate matter that

-------
5
condenses below 120 C; Gil Wood, Chief, Emission Measurement Branch, will
contact your staff separately to discuss techniques to measure these
condensibles.
I hope that the above discussion is helpful to you. We will continue to
work with you to ensure that the proper guidance is given to Utah to develop
an approvable PM-b SIP. Please continue to contact Tom Pace for overall
coordination. I also encourage you to continue to work directly with the
technical support contacts which have been previously Identified.
cc: G. Wood
J. Tlkvart
N. Martinez
J. Calcagni
J. O’Connor
L. Manley
0. Gillam
B. Blaszczak
Director, Air Division, Regions I-VU, IX, X

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT QN AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
4.
I’N 110-89-01-30-102
JAN 3 0 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for Letter Notice Approval of Minor SIP
FROM: G::aldA. Emison,
Off ice of Air Qualjt ann n and Standards (MD—b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, X
The Agency is currently reforming the entire system for
processing State implementation plans (SIPs) pursuant to
recommendations of the Deputy Administrator’s Task Group on SIP
Processing. One such recommendation creates an entirely new form
of SIP processing referred to as “letter notice.” This memo-
randum describes the new letter notice procedure and provides
examples of letter notice approvals and a model Federal Register
notice.
Under the letter notice procedure, EPA will use letters to
affected States and parties rather than notice—and-comment
rulemaking to approve truly insignificant SIP actions. The
Agency will not publish notices of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register prior to sending final letter notice approvals
to the States and affected parties. The letter to the State
will be the Agency’s final action approving such minor SIP
revisions. The Agency will periodically publish a summary list
of all letter notice actions in the Federal Register to keep the
general public informed of SIP matters. The effective date of
letter notice approvals will be the date of the letter to the -
State, not the date of the subsequent summary Federal Register

-------
2
notice. Letter notice approvals will, however, remain subject to
potential judicial review until 60 days after the date of the
summary FederalRegiste notice. 1
Regional Offices are encouraged to use the letter notice
procedure for all minor SIP approvals that are sufficiently
insignificant such that no member of the general public would
have an interest in commenting on them. Categories of SIPs
appropriate for processing through letter notice differ from
those previously processed under the “direct-final” procedure in
that direct-final has been used for SIPS Ofl which EPA did not
expect to receive any adverse comment but which may have held
some interest for the general public. Letter notice should be
used only for those SIPs on which the public will have no
interest in commenting. The Agency is justifying dispensing with
notice and comment rulemaking by relying on the exemption in the
Administrative Procedure Act for situations where it is
“unnecessary or contrary to the public interest” to provide
opportunity for public comment. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). For a full
analysis of the legal issues associated with the letter notice
procedure, see memorandum, Sara Schneeberg to Jim Weigold, “Legal
Analysis of Letter Notice Option for Processing Minor SIP
Actions,” dated May 25, 1988 (attached).
Categories of SIP actions appropriate for letter notice
processing would include recodification involving no substantive
changes, minor technical amendments, typographical corrections,
address changes and similar non-substantive matters. Regional
Offices are encouraged to consult in advance with the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards if questions arise concerning
the appropriateness of using letter notice processing for any
particular SIP action.
Where insignificant SIP actions are generally applicable,
Regional Offices should send a letter similar to that in
Attachment A from the Regional Administrator to the State
indicating that EPA is approving the SIP action. Where
insignificant SIP actions are source-specific, a letter similar
to that in Attachment B should be sent to the affected source in
addition to the approval letter sent to the State.
Clean Air Act Section 307(b)(l) provides that “ [ a]ny
petition for review under this subsection shall be filed
within sixty days from the date notice of such promulgation,
approval or action appears in the Federal Register . . . .
42 U.S.C. 7607(b)1).

-------
3
Periodically as the Regional Office determines appropriate,
but generally not less often than once every six months, Regional
Offices should publish in the Federa). Register a summary listing
of all letter notice approvals made by the Regional Administrator
since the last summary publication. A model summary Federal
Register notice is included as Attachment C to this memorandum.
I believe that use of the letter notice procedure will
greatly expedite your processing of minor SIP revisions. Should
you or your staff have any questions on these procedures please
contact Johnnie Pearson of my staff at FTS 629-5691 or Sara
Schneeberg of the Office of General Counsel at FTS 382—7606.
Attachments
cc: Regional Counsel, Reg. I-X
Regional Counsel (Air Contact), Reg. I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Reg. I—X
John Calcagni
Johnnie Pearson
Sara Schneeberg
Jim Weigold

-------
ATTACHMENT A
MODEL APPROVAL LETTER TO STATE
Governor
State of [ Name of State)
Dear Governor:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received your
request for approval of a revision to the [ name of State] State
implementation plan (SIP) for (pollutant] relating to [ subject
matter of SIP revision) submitted to us on (date of submission].
I have determined that this minor SIP revision complies with
all applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA
policy and regulations concerning such SIP revisions. [ Insert
more detailed rationale for approval as appropriate.] I am
therefore approving this submission under section 110(a) of the
CAA as a revision to the [ name of state) SIP for [ pollutant).
This approval is effective as of today’s date.
Due to the minor nature of this SIP revision, EPA has
concluded that conducting notice-and-c injnent rulemaking prior to
approving this SIP revision would be “unnecessary and contrary to
the public interest,” and hence not required by the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). I am approving this
revision consistent with the procedures outlined in EPA’s Notice
of Procedural Changes on SIP processing published on January 19,
1989 at 54 FR 2214. This is a final action of the Agency subject
to judicial review as appropriate.
[ Insert the following if appropriate)
I have informed [ name of company) of this action.
Sincerely,
Regional Administrator

-------
ATTACHMENT B
MODEL INFORMATION LETTER TO SOURCE
President
[ Name of Company]
Dear [ Name of Company President]:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received a
request from the state of [ name of state] for approval of a
revision to the (name of state] State implementation plan (SIP)
for [ pollutant] relating to (subject matter of SIP revision]
involving your company. I have determined that this minor SIP
revision complies with all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) and EPA policy and regulations concerning such SIP
revisions. (Insert more detailed rationale for approval as
appropriate.] I have therefore approved this submission under
section 110(a) of the CAA as a revision to the (name of state)
SIP for (pollutant) by letter dated today. The approval is
effective as of this date.
Due to the minor nature of this SIP revision, EPA has
concluded that conducting notice-and—comment rulemaking prior to
approving this SIP revision would be “unnecessary and contrary to
the public interest,” and hence, not required by the Adininistra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 (b). I have approved the
revision consistent with the procedures outlined in EPA’s Notice
of Procedural Changes on SIP Processing published on January 19,
1989 at 54 FR 2214. This approval is a final Agency action
subject to judicial review as appropriate.
Sincerely,
Regional Administrator

-------
ATTACHMENT C
MODEL SUMNARY FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Notice of Approvals
SUMMARY: Pursuant to procedures described at 54 FR 2214
(January 19, 1989), EPA has recently approved a number of minor
State implementation plan (SIP) revisions. This notice lists the
revisions EPA has approved and incorporates the relevant material
into the Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: The incorporation by reference will be effective
[ insert date of publication in Federal Register) .
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State SIP revision requests and
EPA’s letter notices of approval are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations:
Environmental Protection Agency
Region _____
[ Address of Regional Office)
State of [ Name of State]
[ Address of State Environmental Office]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [ name and address
of Regional contact person]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Region — has approved the
following minor SIP revision requests under section 110(a) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA):
SUBJECT ‘ DATE OF DATE OF
STATE POLLUTANT MATTER SOURCE SUBMISSION APPROVAL
[ Prepare table with headings similar to those shown.]
EPA has determined that each of these SIP revisions complies
with all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA policy and
regulations concerning such revisions. Due to the minor nature
of these revisions, EPA concluded that conducting notice—and—
comment rulemaking prior to approving the revisions would have
been “unnecessary and contrary to the public interest,” and

-------
2
hence was not required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. Section 553(b). Each of these SIP approvals became final
and effective on the date of EPA approval as listed in the chart
above.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted all SIP
approvals from the requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order
12291.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that these SIP revisions
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. See 46 FR 8709.
Under Section 307(b)(l) of the CAA, as amended, judicial
review of this action is available only by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of today. These actions may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce their requirements.
See Section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52: [ List relevant
subjects]
Date Regional Administrator

-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart _____ is amended as
follows:
Subpart - [ Name of State)
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues
to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 42 U.s.c. 7401-7642.
2. Section ____ is amended as follows:
[ insert relevant CFR languagej

-------
PN 110—89—01—19—101
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
State Implementation Plan Processing Reform (54 FR
2214, January 19, 1989)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy related to this
subject.

-------
PN 110—89—01—19—100
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
State Implementation Plan Completeness Review (54 FR
2138, January 19, 1989)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy related to this
subject.

-------
PN 110-88-11-21-099
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carol:na 27711
NOV 2 1 B88
M EMORAN DUM
SUBJECT: Revision to Policy on the Use 19 f r Measurement Data
FROM: Gerald A. Ezuison,
Off ice of Air Quality ‘Ianning and Standards (MD-b)
TO: See Attached List
A joint Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS)/Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL)
committee has evaluated the issue of potential uncertainty in
measurement data produced by PM 10 samplers. They considered
modifications and/or clarifications to existing Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) policy contained in the Z .S1P
Development Guideline (Section 2.3), the supplementary Resoonse
to Questions Regarding PM. State Implementation Plan (SIP’
Development (published June 1988), and the data requirements of
Appendix K to 40 CFR 50 and Part 58. This committee’s issue
paper which incorporated comments from Regional staff is
attached. This memo follows their recommendations and presents
the revised EPA poiicy regarding the treatment of PM 10 data
produced by reLerence and nonreference PM 0 samplers. Treatment
of data produced by colbocated PM 10 samplers is also discussed.
Deviations to this general policy must receive concurrence of
OAQPS.
For this discussion, the term reference sampler shall be
used to represent samplers using a reference method based on
Appendix J to 40 CFR 50 and designated by EPA in accordance
with 40 CFR 53, as wel]. as samplers using an equivalent method
designated by EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 53. Nonreference
samplers are all other PM 10 samplers which have not been
formally designated as such.
USE OF REFERENCE AND NONREFERENCE SAMPLER DATA
For purposes of evaluating PM,, air quality status, all
data produced by reference samplers shall be interpreted at
face value and can be used to make comparisons with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the purposes
of determining attainment or nonattainment, in accordance with

-------
2
Appendix K to 40 CFR 50. Data Collected by nonreference
samplers may only be used to supplement and to corroborate data
collected by reference samplers where such data are
insufficient in quantity to make a determination of whether or
not the area is attaining or not attaining the standard.
Moreover, data collected by Some nonreference PM 10 samplers
shall be interpreted using gray zones to indicate the potential
uncertainty in these older data, which was the policy used for
determination of Group I, II and III areas. These details for
using data produced by nonreference samplers in order to
interpret status with respect to the 24—hour and annual NAAQS
are contained in Attachment A. Three situations are discussed:
attainment, nonattajnrnent and indeterminate. The latter
situation is one in which sufficient reference and nonreference
data are not available to make an unambiguous attainment or
nonattajnment determination.
Regulations in 40 CFR 58 require that State and Local
Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) Networks be established by
August 1, 1988; therefore, data collected after this date by
nonreference samplers shall not be used. If a nonreference
sampler without further modification is designated as a
reference sampler in the future, then all of its historical
data is retroactively defined as data produced by a reference
sampler.
A table providing a general overview of this new policy
for interpretation of PM 10 measu rement data is included as
Attachment B. The treatment of reference and norireference data
is described according to the dates associated with its
collection.
COLLOCATED PM SAMPLERS
In the event that more than one PM 10 sampler is operating
concurrently at a location, data from reference method samplers
always takes precedence over data from nonreference samplers.
If multiple samplers are collocated for data quality assessment
purposes (i.e., precision and accuracy), similar sampler types
must be used and one sampler must be designated a Driori for
data reporting purposes (Appendix A to 40 CFR 58). Further-
more, if more than one type of sampler is used by a reporting
organization, collocated precision sites should be established
for each sampler type.
In order to sample more frequently than every 6 th day, more
than one sampler may be operated at a monitoring site. This
group of samplers, plus any samplers sited for data quality
assessment purposes, shall represent a single monitoring

-------
: 3
station. When more than one sampler (or group) is operated
independently by one or more monitoring agencies concurrently
for attainment assessment purposes, each sampler (or group)
shall represent a different monitoring station. The data from
each monitoring station shall be used separately to assess
attainment or nonattajnment with the NAAQS, provided that
the data meet all the requirements for SLAMS specified in
40 CFR 58, includes quality assurance and siting, and a quality
assurance program that has been approved by the appropriate
Regional Office.
Attachments
Addressees:
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
Region IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, X
Director, Environmental Services Division, Regions [ -VIII, X
Director, Office of Policy and Management, Region IX
cc. G. Foley, AREAL
A. Eckert, OGC
bcc. D. Novello, OGC
J. Bachinanri (MD-li)
PM 10 Measurement Data Working Group
PM 10 Monitoring Contacts
PM 10 SIP Contacts

-------
ATTACHMEt’ T A:
USE OF NONREFERENCE PM 1 DATA TO SUPPORT AND CORROBORATE
REFERENCE PM 10 DATA
COMPARISONS WITH THE 24-FIR NAAQS
Data produced by nonreference samplers may be interpreted
subject to the following conditions: (1) Exceedances measured
with certain PM 10 dichotomous samplers 1 shall be treated the
same as exceedances measured with reference or equivalent
method samplers, but only when there also are one or more
exceedances subsequently measured with reference samplers at
the same location. (2) Data produced with other nonreference
samplers shall be interpreted using gray zones (as previously
defined in the Jj 0 SIP Development Guideline and which were
used for SIP area grouping) as follows - (a) an exceedance
measured.with a nonreference sampler outside its gray zone can
be treated as an exceedance of the NAAQS, only when there also
are one or more exceedances subsequently measured with
reference samplers at the same location, and (b) a PM 10 value
produced by a nonreference sampler which is in its gray zone is
not treated as an exceedance of the NAAQS nor is it treated as
a nonexceedance of the NAAQS (i.e. it is treated as an
uncertain data value for purposes of making comparisons with
the NAAQS), but it does count as a measurement used to satisfy
data completeness and compute annual averages.
Accordingly, data produced by nonreference method samplers
in combination with data produced with reference method
samplers may be used to identify the following situations:
24-hr NAAOS — Attainment Situation
If (1) the total number of observed
exceedances measured by reference and
nonreference samplers results in an estimated
number of exceeedances to be less than or
equal to one (subject to the rounding
conventions and adjustments specified in
Appendix K), (2) uncertain data values
produced by nonreference samplers as defined
above do not exist, and (3) the combined data
produced by these samplers satisfy the data
completeness requirements in Appendix K and
are in accordance with the established EPA
guidelines, i.e. Guideline on Exceptions to
Data Requirements for Determininc Attainment
of Particulate Matter Standards (EPA-450/4-
87-005, April 1987), then the State can
‘Samplers with inlet models SA246B, GMW9200 and WA1O.

-------
solicit approval by the appropriate Regional
Administrator to demonstrate attainment with
the 24—hr NAAQS.
24—hr NAAOS - Nonattajnment Situation
If (1) the total number of observed
exceedances measured by a reference sampler
results in an estimated number of exceedances
to be greater than one, or (2) one or more
exceedances are observed by a reference
sampler and the total number of observed
exceedances measured by reference and
nonreference samplers results in an estimated
number of exceedances to be greater than one
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then
the State should acknowledge that a
nonattainment problem exists and take
appropriate action.
24-hr NAAOS — Indeterminate Situation
If the total number of observed exceedances
results, in an estimated number less than or
equal to one, but the available data is
insufficient to demonstrate attainment as
judged under Appendix K, the State or local
monitoring agency must continue PM 10 sampling
until attainment or nonattajnment of the
NAAQS can be established.
COMPARISONS WITH ThE ANNUAL NAAQS
When insufficient reference data are available to
estimate the PM 1 , expected annual mean according to Appendix
K, then nonreference data can be used to supplement and
corroborate data produced by the reference samplers. In
order to facilitate this discussion, the following
definitions are introduced:
(1) xR and x represent the annual means computed from data
produced by reference and nonreference samplers,
respectively.
(2) x’,, represents the nonreference mean adjusted for the
effect of the gray zone, as follows:

-------
X’., = 1.2 x ,, , if nonreference data is Wedding 7 ,
= 0.8 XWR, if nonreference data is Sierra
Anderson’,
= x,m, if nonreference data is produced by certain
dichotomous samplers specified in footnote 1.
(3) x and x’ represent the range of estimated annual means
resulting from a combination of data produced by
reference and nonreference samplers and the effects of
the gray zones:
x = p * X,m + (l-p) * x , and
x’= p * x’,,, + (l-p) * XR,
where p is the relative weight placed on the
nonreference data (e.g. p = 1/3 when 1 year of
nonreference and 2 years of reference data are
available).
Annual NAAOS - Attainment Situation
If x 1 is less than or equal to 50 ug/m’ and both
x and x’ are also less than or equal to 50 ug/m
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then the
nonreference data have corroborated that the
expected annual mean is less than the level of
the NAAQS and the State can solicit approval by
the appropriate Regional Administrator t-
demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS.
Annual NAAOS - Nonattainment Situation
If x 1 is greater than 50 ug/m’ and both x and x’
are also greater than that concentration level
(subject to the rounding conventions and
adjustments specified in Appendix K), then the
State should acknowledge that a nonattainment
problem exists and take appropriate action.
Annual NAAOS - Indeterminate Situation
If (1) ; is less than or equal to 50 ug/m’,
and x or x’ is greater than 50 ug/m’, or (2)
x is greater than 50 ug/m’, and x or x’ is
less than or equal to 50 ug/m’, then the
‘GMW9000 or any comparable Wedding designed high volume PM 10
sampler .1ithout a cleaning port.
‘SA321A

-------
status with respect to the annual standard is
indeterminate and the State or local
monitoring agency must continue PM 10 sampling
until attainment or nonattajnntent of the
NAAQS can be established.

-------
ATTACHMENT B
REVISED POLICY FOR INTERPRETATION OF PM 10 MEASUREMENT DATA
DATA COLLECTION TIME PERIOD
Prior to Aug 1, 1987 From
Aug. 1, 1987 to Aug. 1, 1988
(effective July 31, 1988
date of
promulgation)
Sai rnjer :
Reference
Samplers Face Value Face Value Face Value
Unapproved
Sampler&
SA & Wedding Gray Zone 2 Gray Zone Not to be
(older) Used’
Dichots Face Value Face Value Not to be
Used’
Data produced by unapproved samplers may only be used to
support and corroborate data produced by reference
samplers.
A zone of uncertainty within which PM 10 data are used with
less authority, as discussed in Attachment A; Gray zone
limits were defined in the SIP Development Guideline .
For attainment/nonattajnment and design values only;
Regional Administrator approval for other SIP purposes
(40 CFR 58.14(b)).

-------
PN 110—88-11-04-098
itO Sr 4
.t’
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4 L
N 4 19
OfI1CEOF
All A1 D RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Long-Term Nonattainment of the PM 1 Standards
FROM: Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrato
for Air and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I — X
•States are currently in the process of developing and
submitting to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) State
implementation plans (SIP’S) to implement the PM 10 national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) with the highest priority being those
areas having the greatest probability of violating the standards
(Group I). This memorandum provides guidance to Regional Offices
regarding review of SIP’s for areas that may not be able to provide
for attainment within 3 to 5 years, the statutory deadlines.
Background
Preliminary assessments of air quality and emissions
information from around the country indicate that a number of
areas, principally in the West, may not attain the PM 10 primary
standards within 3 to 5 years, even with application of innovative
control technologies. These areas range in size and type from
small rural agricultural and mountain communities to a few major
urban areas. The most difficult control problems in these areas
are posed by nontradjtjona].” sources of PM 20 , such as wood stoves,
urban fugitive dust, agricultural and desert dust, diesel
emissions, atmospherically formed secondary particles such as
sulfates and nitrates, and prescription burning in forested and
agricultural areas.
Earlier this year, this office established a task force to
examine long—term nonattajnment of the PIçØ standards and suggest
approaches for dealing with it. In so doing, the task force found
notable constraints under the Clean Air Act (ACT). Under the
section 110 pathway we are currently following for PIçØ, our tools
for forcing actions are limited. Furthermore, even in situations
where States are making a good faith effort to attain, the rigid
time constraints may force Federal intervention. The task force
concluded that consideration of amendments to the nonattainment
portions of the Act should be expanded to include PM 20 . I
strongly support this conclusion and we are encouraging the

-------
2
Congress to address PM 10 in Act legislation (see attached letter to
Congressman Dingell).
In the meantime, our options for dealing with long-term PM 10
nonattainrnent must comply with our current authorities. We intend,
however, to do as much as we can to encourage real progress while
avoiding penalizing those States which are making good faith
efforts. The following presents guidance that we are able to
provide at the present time on the control of nontraditional
sources and action on P 1 4 10 SIP’s.
Guidance on Control of Nontraditional Sources
The Office of Air Qu&lity Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
previously has distributed to State and local air pollution control
agencies guidance on imple ent tion of the PM 10 standards, including
the PM 10 SIP Development Guideline (June 1987) and this year’s
supplement to that guideline. These materials also referenced a
number of previously—released publications on PM 1 control
techniques and SIP development. In addition to providing written
guidance, OAQPS also held a series of workshops in August 1987 to
brief State and local agencies on requirements for implementing the
PM 10 NAAQS. A list of reference materials pertaining to control
technology for point sources, fugitive sources, and wood stoves was
made available at the workshops. These references were also mailed
to those who requested copies.
The OAQPS has additional work underway on guidance for
measures to control emissions from nontraditional sources such as
urban fugitive dust, wood smoke, rural fugitive dust, open
burning/smoke management, and secondary particle formation. The
first technical guidance document, Control of Open Fugitive Dust
Sources (EPA-450/3-88—008), is now being distributed. Other
guidance documents will be forthcoming from workgroups formed to
provide example control measures for these nontraditional source
categories. We expect that the Regional Offices will consult with
States experiencing difficulty in providing for attainment of the
NAAQS by the statutory deadlines and will encourage adoption of the
measures identified in the guidance. Where the State control
strategy does not incorporate the measures in a guidance document,
the State should explain why the measures are not appropriate or
otherwise not included in the SIP. Where guidance on control
measures do not exist, the Regional Office should include a ‘careful
evaluation of the reasonableness of the control strategy in the
Technical Support Dc,cu ent.
Action on PM 10 SIP’S
The EPA has previously determined that PM 1 , SIP submittals are
governed by section. 110 of the Clean Air Act. Under section
1l0(a)(2)(A), however, these SIP’S are to provide for attainment 0’
the primary standards “as expeditiously as possible but [ (subject

-------
3
to subsection (e)] in no case later than 3 years from the date of
approval of such plan.” Section 110(e) allows EPA, upon
application of the Governor of the State, to extend the attainment
deadline by as much as 2 additional years, if the technology or
other means necessary for attainment will not be reasonably
available with that 3-year period. Clearly, if EPA determines that
a PM 0 SIP demonstrates attainment of the standards within these
time periods, the SIP can be approved.
Some PM SIP’s submitted to Regional Offices may, however,
lack a persuasive demonstration of attainment of the primary
standards within 3 to 5 years. The SIP in such a case will likely
include control measures that are necessary to move the area toward
attainment and, therefore, constitute an improvement upon the
existing SIP. As a result of an adverse judicial decision in the
Ninth Circuit [ (Abramowitz V. EPA , 832 F.2d 1071 (1987)], however,
some ambiguity exists as to whether EPA may approve individual
control measures for States unless it first determines whether or
not the SIP demonstrates that the area will attain the standard by
the statutory deadlines. (The Ninth Circuit encompasses all the
States in Regions IX and X, as well as Montana.) In Abraxnowitz ,
which involved the South Coast (California) ozone/CO SIP, EPA had
approved a number of individual control measures but explicitly
declined to judge whether or not those measures would achieve
attainment of the NAAQS by December 31, 1987, the statutory
deadline in Part D of the Act, even though California had submitted
an attainment demonstration (which indicated the standards would
not be attained by the deadline). The court rejected this view,
holding that EPA exceeded its authority by approving the control
measures without requiring a demonstration of attainment, I . at
107g. The Abrampwjtz court did note that it was expressing no view
on the question of whether EPA may approve individual control
measures if they would strengthen the SIP and improve air quality,
at the same time it disapproves the attainment demonstration. I
While the holding does not apply directly to PM-b SIPs, it
could be interpreted to require EPA to determine whether a PM-b
SIP demonstrates attainment within 3 to 5 years before approving
any individual control measures. At least in the Ninth Circuit,
this ruling poses some obstacles to approval of a SIP that does not
demonstrate attainment in 3 to 5 years, unless the SIP as a whole
is disapproved for failure to attain. In such a case, we should be
able to approve particular SIP measures that improve air quality.
In other circuits EPA is not bound by the Abramowitz precedent.
Based on current information, it is likely that some areas may
not be able to provide a persuasive demonstration of attainment
within the statutory deadlines even after adoption of reasonable
control strategy measures. These areas appear to have unique
combinations of factors which will prevent rapid attainment of the
standards. These factors include: (1) the variety and magnitude
of difficult-to-control sources that are the major causes of the

-------
4
elevated ambient concentrations, (2) the degree of control
required, and (3) the amount of time necessary to develop and apply
control measures to bring about attainment. Due to these factors,
it is not possible at this time to issue comprehensive and explicit
guidance which will pertain in all situations.
Each State has an obligation to attain the standards as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than 5 years, by adopting
necessary control measures. The Regional Offices can use the
control measures identified by the workgroups mentioned earlier as
a guide to judge whether the control strategy submitted by the
State is reasonable. A SIP which does not provide a persuasive
demonstration that attainment will occur by the statutory deadlines
and does not include a reasonable control strategy should be
disapproved. Where such an attainment demonstration cannot be
made, but the SIP includes a reasonable control strategy, the
Regional Office should consult with OAQPS and the Office of General
Counsel concerning action on the SIP.
We appreciate the assistance provided by the Regional Offices
in developing long-term nonattainment programs for PM , and
encourage your continued participation in the further development
of guidance material. Should you have any questions, comments, or
further suggestions, please contact John Calcagni at FTS 629-5621.
Attachment
cc: G. Emison
A. Eckert

-------
PM 110-88-09-06-097
(D ,

4 )
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
SEP 6 1988
In pronulgating the new PM 10 standards last year, we recognized that
the States did not have adequate resources to develop plans to demonstrate
attainment everywhere. Therefore, we initiated three mechanisms -to reduce
the planning burden, to allow time for the States to develop quality State
implementation plans (SIP’s), and to provide us with information on the
status of the SIP development.
First, with your help, we classified all areas as Group I, II, or
III. We required only procedural revisions for Group III areas and
procedural revisions, increased monitoring, and convnitment for Group II
areas. Full demonstration SIP’s were required only for Group I areas and
Group II areas which observed violations of the standards.
Next, we asked you to work with your States to submit SIP development
plans. These plans allow the States to set reasonable deadlines for
developing and submitting the SIP’s.
Then we developed a computerized bulletin board tracking system to
track the State-established milestones. This allows your staffs to
update the SIP development status and allows the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to have the information necessary to
manage the program.
At the Atlantic City Division Directors meeting, you expressed
concerns about the status of SIP development and consequences of missing
deadlines. The purpose of this memorandum is to address those concerns.
Revisions to the SIP Development Plans
Last fall when we were reviewing the SIP development plans, we noted
that several of them appeared to be overly optimistic. Since these were
State commitments, weapproved the plans. In addition, some States with
Status and Concerns
Director, Air Division
Regions I—X

-------
2
schedules which seemed reasonable at the time have found the development
of the PM 10 SIP more time consuming than originally thought. Therefore,
some of the development plan mflestones will have to be revised. The revised
milestones should show sustained progress for submission of the SIP’s as
soon as possible. Revised milestones must be fully justified and cannot
extend beyond the end of FY 1988 for the Group II and III SIP’s, and not
later than the end of FY 1989 for the Group I full attainment demonstration
SIP’s. It is imperative that States fulfill t4ieir obligations to prepare
and submit SIP’s as outlined above. If a State does not submit a SIP
revision for a Group I area by the end of FY 1989, the process leading to
the development of a Federal in lementation plan should begin.
If a State requests a revision to its development plan, you should
review it to ensure it meets the above guidelines, then send me a memorandum
justifying the extended schedule. Please expedite your efforts to make
the necessary revisions to the schedules since we intend to use the
schedules to develop the FY 1989 Strategic Planning and Management System
(SPMS) commitments.
Missed Milestones
Attainment of the PM 10 standard is one of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA’s) top priorities. States should have planned for, and provided,
adequate resources to develop their SIP’s. Where reasonable efforts are
not being made, the Region at this time should meet with the State to
discover the cause of the slippage. Although the milestone dates are not
legally enforceable, they were developed by the States, and the State’s
record in meeting the milestone dates can be used to show that the State
is, or is not, making a good-faith effort to develop and submit a SIP.
If one of your States has missed or will miss a milestone, you
should renegotiate the development dates. The revised schedules and
justifications should be submitted as described above. If the slippage
results from a misunderstanding of EPA’s priorities, you should use the
grant negotiation process to ensure proper attention is given to PM 1 O SIP
development. In this regard, you should note that failure to meet a
grant condition can be considered a basis for the withholding of section 105
grant funds. On the other hand, if a State is making good—faith efforts
and has justifiable reasons for not being able to meet the milestones,
documenting this fact and specific needs will be beneficial to us in
nationally evaluating options for assistance and for prioritizing future
resource allocations.
Changes in Groupings
We have received several requests to reclassify areas from one group
to another. Our basic purpose in developing the grouping process was to
prioritize and allocate resources; it was intended to be a one—time

-------
3
process based upon available data in July 1987. Therefore, all requests
to reclassify areas were evaluated to determine if the areas were erroneously
classified based upon the data available in July 1987. We believe that
only three areas need to be reclassified and we plan to issue a Federal
! ister notice to amend the August 7, 1987 Federal Register listing.
Observed Exceedances in Group II and III Areas
As a State observes an exceedance of the PM 10 standards in the
Group II areas, it should initiate a chain of events which will lead to
the development and submittal of a SIP revision when a violation of the
standard is recorded. The first step in the process will be intensive
monitoring of the area. As additional exceedances are observed, the
State should begin planRing SIP revisions for the area. The planning
process should include reviewing the status of the emission inventories,
conducting filter analyses, and evaluating the need for special studies.
If additional exceedances sufficient to constitute a violation are
observed, the State nust notify EPA within 30 days and submit a SIP
revision within 6 months of that notification.
Therefore, it is important to identify exceedances as soon as possible.
Your staff should work with the State to review the Group II area monitoring
data to ensure early detection of the exceedances. If one is observed,
you should discuss its implications with the State. When a State notifies
you of a violation of the standard, or your own analysis indicates that a
standard is being violated, you should request that the State immediately
submit a SIP development plan. That plan should be sent to OAQPS for
review and, if acceptable, milestones will be extracted for the bulletin
board tracking system.
In promulgating the implementation regulations, we announced that we
would treat Group III areas which observed violations of the PM 1 standards
as newly discovered nonattainnient areas (52 FR 24682, Col. 1). If a
State reports a violation of a standard in a Group III area, you should
ask the State to investigate the cause of the problem and take appropriate
action. This may include revisions to the SIP. In addition, you should
notify us as soon as possible and, if necessary, work with the State to
submit a SIP development plan which meets the timefrarnes discussed above.
Technical Assistance
In developing their emission inventories, several States have
identified sources which are not covered in our “Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors” (AP-42). To estimate the emissions, States
had to develop their own emission factors. Although many of these factors
are very site-specific, the information they generate may be transferable
to other areas. Therefore, last year we instituted an emission factor
clearinghouse to assist in the transfer of information on PM 10 emission

-------
4
factors (see memorandum from Richard G. Rhoads to Regional Air Branch
Chiefs dated November 9, 1937). Emission factors obtained from the
clearinghouse wi1l be deemed to be acceptable for SIP use.
In February 1988, we cosponsored w th APCA a specialty conference on
P 1 1 10 implementation. The transactions from that conference have been
published by APCA and the conferees should be receiving their copies this
month. We have sent a copy to each Regional Office Air Branch Chief.
Additional copies can be purchased from APCA.
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Stonefield at
FTS 629-5350.

-------
PN 110-88-08-05-096
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG. 5i
MEMOR AN DUN
SUB3ECT:
FROM:
TO:
Identifying and Expeditifl9 SIP Revisions that Impact
the Enforcement Process
John S. Seitz, Director ,,
Stationary Source ComplienCe DivisiOn
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Michael S. Alushifl
Associate Enforcement Counsel or Airr
Office of Enforcement and Ccmpliaflce Monitoring
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I , III , and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, pesticides and ToxicS Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and ToxicS Division Directors
Regions VII, viii, and X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
We are providing an ad iti fl L means to help you manage
the process of reviewing proposed revisions to State
Implementation Plans (SIPS) under the Clean Air Act. One area
of difficulty is where delay in reviewing a proposed change
undermines your ability to enforce the current version O a
SIP.

-------
—2—
We have agreed with John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, that you may use the OECM Case Docket as
a way to alert Headquarters to SIP processing delays which
may impact a referral action. As you know, a case enters the
Docket once the litigation report has been received by
Headquarters. Among the many pieces of information tracked
in the Docket is a field called Regional Comments. This
field is updated monthly by Regional Counsel and read by the
Headquarters staff attorney to learn about the most recent
events affecting the case. We suggest that the Regional
comment field be used as the means for you to describe your
understanding on the status, location, and expected future
action of a si revision affecting the case. SIP reyisions
received by the Region but not yet forwarded to Headquarters
should be noted in the comment field along with how the
revision impacts the case. In the future, OAQPS’s computeriZeC
SIP TRAX system will be expanded to also include information
on SIPS being processed by the Region and whether the revision
impacts an enforcement action.
The OECM—AED attorneys will share the Docket updates with
SSCD’S Regional Programs Section (RPS) on a monthly basis and
they will alert their respective management to issues/needs
noted in these updates. at course, should a matter that
needs a quicker response arise, a call to PPS ( erard A. raus
FTS 382—2847) or the OECM—Air Enforcement Division (Elliott
Gilberg FTS 475—7089) is welcome.
SIP revisions that impact a significant violator also
need to be expeditiouslY reviewed. To alert HeadquarterS tO
this, the SIP’S transmittal memo should clearly state that
the revision impacts a significant violator.
Where SSCD learns from Docket reviews or a transmittal
memo that SIP revisions in Headquarters need to be expedited
because they impact a current referral, forthcoming referral
or a significant violator source, SSCD (RPS) will alert Johnnie
Pearson in AQMD (FTS 629—5691) on an ongoing basis. As
mentioned above, the SIP TRAX system will soon note if
revisions impact an enforcement action. He will then notify
the Headquarters reviewing offices of the need to complete
their reviews in a timely fashion. Johrtnie will also monitor
those SIPS that have tO go through 0MB to minimize delays
there. On a monthly basis (simultaneous to reviewing the
case Docket), RPS will check with Johnnie on the status of
the revisions previouslY identified as needing expeditious
review and attempt to get outstanding problems resolved.

-------
—3-
For OU to binefit from this process. it is imperative
that Pegioflhl Counsel complete their monthly Docket updates
in a timely fashion and the Regional air programs (including
compliance) be involved. It is also necessary that the
memorandum transmitting a SIP revision to Headquarters note
that the revision impacts a referral, will impact a referral,
or impacts a significant violator source. This will give
Headquarters two avenues (the Docket and the SIP’S transmittal
memo) for knowing whether certain SIPS need to be expedited.
Please start identifying SIP revisions which affect
referrals in the August Docket update. Regions should already
be noting the needed information in the SIP’S transmittal
memo (see attached memo). Por SIP revisions that ar in
Headquarters and impact a significant violator, the Regions
need to alert their Regional liaison in SSCD as soon as
possible of these revisions so they can be expedited.
- Please call Gerard C. Kraus (382—2 47) in SSCD or Elliott
Gilberg (475—7089) in the OECM—Air Enforcement Division, if
you have questions.
Attachment
cc: Edward Reich, OEC
Sally Manabach, OECM
John Calcagni, ACMD
Johnnie Pearson, AQMD
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Rec ions II, III, IV, V, VI and IX
Air Prbgram Branch Chiefs
Regions I — X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I—X

-------
.tO I’.
____ C 1TED STATES EN 1RO ’1E TkL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ ASH GT0 ,D C. 20460
4D0 I A I D orvicIO’
ru ‘ ‘ -
i MORANDUM
‘ending SIP Revi LOfl5 Jnich Affect Active Air
nforce ent Cases
i M: John S. Seitz, Director
. tationary Sources Co tpli nce Division
Office of Air uality Planning and Standards
TO: Air 1 1anage7terlt vision Directors
Regions I, UI and I X
Air and r aste kana,e nent .)ivisiOn Director
(egion II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Ianage ent L)ivisiOfl
i rectors
egio is IV anJ VI
ir and radiation DivisiOn Director
Region V
Air nd Tozics Division Directors
.- e ;ions VLI, VIII and X
I would lic• to thank you and your staff for the cooperation
‘ou . ave in n.iping okC:1-A D prepare the attached men orandU .
nd John C.alcagrii will do our best to expedite the processing
3f these pending SIPs and will keep you informed of our progress.
Since this exercise only addressed SIPs offic:ally in
.:asnin ton, we need to begin identifying SIPS within the
re . ion Lut not yet submitted tO asnLngtofl that have Federal
enforcement action initiated. .hen these SIPs are forwarded to
s. .dease clearly note that expeditiOuS processing is needed
cue to it effect on the enforceflent action.

-------
—2-
Thar k you *gain tot your Ptetp.
cachment
cc: Air Compliance Brar ch Cnie s
Regions Ii . III. LV , V. VI and IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I, V II, VII I and X
John C Lcagni, AQMD

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4,
1 RO
JJ’J 2? i9g PN 110880627095
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: NGrandfatheringN of Requireme s r Pending SIP Revisions
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Direc
Office of Air Quality anning and Standards (MD—b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Di rector, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, X
Recon iendatjons for improving SIP processing generally at EPA were
presented to the Deputy Administrator and approved fully. It is the
intention of the Agency’s management that the reconvnendations be imple-
mented promptly. This is being done by an Intra—Agency Work Group
composed of Headquarters and Regional Office persons. This memorandum
provides guidance on applying previously applicable standards to pending
SIP revisions where the relevant requirements have changed since the
state prepared the SIP submittal (i.e., Ngrandfathering ).
In a ninnber of cases, States have submitted SIP packages that were
consistent with the EPA requirements” (i.e., standards, regulations,
policies, legal interpretations, guidances, and clarifications) in effect
at the time. As a result of processing delays and policy evolution, the
applicable requirements were revised before the proposed SIP change
received EPA approval. When the revised requirements did not contain an
appropriate grandfathering provision (e.g., a provision allowing SIP
packages to be acted upon based on the requirements, in effect at the time
of State adoption), SIP reviewers assumed that the appropriate action was
to disapprove the SIP revision and/or return it to the State for changes.
Not only can this delay rulemaking, but It also may be inequitable
and serve as an Irritant to effective EPA/State/local agency cooperation.
Moreover, such action usually results in an ineffective use of resources
by the State and EPA. Consequently, we are today extending the concept

-------
2
of grandfathering contained in existing guidance (e.g., for modeling), as
described in the enclosure. It is the intent of EPA management that
grandfathering be applied where it is warranted and appropriate. Today’s
guidance was developed in conjunction with the Regional Offices and the
Office of General Counsel. We believe that it deals with the equity
issue, will not have a noticeable environmental impact overall, will
strengthen the Agency’s working relationship with Its State and local
partners, and does not conflict with either the Clean Air Act or the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsel (Air Branch Chiefs), Regions I—X
Don Clay
Alan Eckert
Mike Alushin
John Seitz
Robert Cahill
John Calcagni
Bob Wayland
Dick Wilson
Bill Laxton
Charles Gray

-------
bcc: Work Group Members
Jack Farmer
Rich Ossias
Peter Wyckoff
Bern Steigerwald
3

-------
GUIDANCE ON GRANDFATHER1NG OF
REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP REVISiONS
June 1988
Introducti on
EPA is expanding its guidance on how to apply previously
applicable requirements In two general situations where the Issue may
arise: (1) when new or newly revised “requirements’ (i.e., standards,
regulations, policies, legal interpretations, guidances, or clarifications)
for SIPs are issued by the Agency and •(2) when rulemaking action is taken on
a “SIP revision” (i.e., a State—specific EPA rulemaking under
the Clean Air Act). This guidance will be in effect for complete SIP
revisions submitted to EPA and for requirements issued and/or revised by
EPA after today. In general, all SIP revisions submitted before today
will continue to be reviewed based on EPA ’s current policy, which is to
decide each SIP revision based on the requirements in existence at the
time of EPA ’s rulemaking.
Grandfathering is not to be considered mandatory or automatic.
In determining whether grandfathering should apply, and what the appropriate
date should be, the decision maker should keep in mind the thrust of this
guidance, i.e., to honor good faith effort on the part of the State/local
agency submitting the revision, balancing equity with other considerations.
This guidance expressly is not intended as a vetncle to allow circumvention
of tighter requirements or to facilitate the avoidance of difficult
deci sions.
Legal Background
Whenever a new requirement is established by Congress (via statute)
or by EPA (via regulation or policy), it becomes generally applicable
unless the authority establishing the requirement provides otherwise.
When Congress enacts a new statute, it applies to all matters then pending
before an agency unless Congress specifically provides otherwise in the
statute. The Agency has no authority to grandfather any matter from the
new statutory requirements without explicit provisions in the statute.
When EPA issues new regulations, they are also generally applicable
unless the regulations themselves include grandfathering provisions. If
grandfathering provisions are not explicit in the regulations and absent
a contrary interpretation by the Agency, courts will apply the new rules
to matters pending before the Agency. Thorpe v. Housing Authority of

-------
2
Durham , 393 U.s. 268 (1969). However, an agency does have some
flexibility to provide grandfathering provisions in new regulations.
Generally, such provisions are appropriate where they meet a four-part
test. First, the new rule represents an abrupt departure from well-
established practice. Second, affected parties have relied on the
old rule. Third, the new rule imposes a large burden on those affected.
Fourth, there is no strong statutory interest in applying the new rule
generally. Sierra Club v. EPA , 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. den.
468 U.S. 1204 (1984). In the past, EPA has generally included explicit
grandfathering provisions in new regulations where appropriate. Under
this guidance, EPA will affirmatively consider the need for grandfathering
provisions in all new regulations.
An agency has very broad authority to decide how and when to issue
new guidance, since as a purely legal matter guidance is not absolutely
binding on subsequent proceedings. Pacific Gas and Electric Co . v. FPC,
506 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Historically, EPA has provided Only limited
grandfathering from revised guidance. This document establishes a detailed
framework for grandfathering pending SIP revisions from all future EPA
requi rements.
The Guidance
The following will be considei’ed in deciding whether to apply grand-
fathering to an individual SIP revision and in developing appropriate
grandfathering provisions for each EPA SIP requirement:
A. General Guidance: A SIP revision generally will remain subject to the
requirements in effect either (a) on the date that the State adopts the
SIP revision (provided a complete, fully adopted revision is submitted
promptly, generally within 60 days of the adoption), or (b) on the date
that the USEPA proposes the SIP revision under the parallel processing
procedure. However, in specific cases, EPA will apply different dates as
appropriate (e.g., see memorandum, J. Tikvart to Regional Modeling
Contacts, January 2, 1985, concerning grandfathering modeling requirements).
A discussion of what constitutes a complete, fully adopted SIP revision is
found in the memorandum, G. Emison to Regional Air Directors, March 18,
1988.
B. There are certain exceptions to the general grandfathering guidance:
1. Grandfathering should not be considered if the State has not acted
in good faith in preparing and submitting a SIP revision. For example,
an incomplete revision hurriedly submitted to avoid coverage under a new or
revised EPA requirement should not be grandfathered. Similarly, grand-
fathering should not be considered when a SIP revision is submitted

-------
3
substantially in excess of 60 days after State adoption as specified in
paragraph A.
2. Grandfathering of SIP revisions may not be appropriate or possible
when a court ruling has explicitly changed a current federal requirement
or has convinced EPA that a previous requirement is no longer supportable.
Under these circumstances, the Office of General Counsel (OGC), in consul-
tation with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM)
and the Office of Mr and Radiation (OAR), will define the 1imits of
the court’s decision and h it may affect EPA’s requirements and SIP
revisions, including previously approved SIP revisions, pending SIP
revisions, and SIP revisions which are to be submitted in the future.
OGC will make its best effort to issue such an opinion within 60 days
from the date of the court’s decision.
Based on this analysis, OAR will issue a decision on the appropri-
ateness of grandfathering and the continued use of the pre—court ruling
requirement on pending and future SIP revisions. This decision will
generally be issued within 90 days from the date of the court’s decision.
OAR will also issue a decision on the appropriate action to take, e.g.,
notice of SIP deficiency or wno action” needed at this time, on previously
approved SIP revisions.
3. The Administrator may determine that grandfathering is not
appropriate under a certain new policy. He could conclude that the old
policy was ill—founded, or simply not wish to grandfather due to the importance
of the new policy to EPA’s programs. Where a new policy issued by
the Administrator specifically states that grandfathering is not appro-
priate or establishes a particular grandfathering provision that differs
from this guidance, such provisions would of course supersede this guidance.
4. Grandfathering of a particular SIP revision or requirement is
not appropriate if a decision to grandfather it would have an imminent
and substantial adverse environmental impact or could permanently foreclose
the continued use of the provisions and/or sanctions of Part 0 of the
Clean Air Act, e.g., changes In Section 107 designations or the full
approval of Part D plans, both of which may foreclose the future use of
sanctions to assure the correction of any deficiency arLising from the
change in EPA requirements.
5. Action on a SIP revision which comports with the revised require-
ments but not the original requirements may be based on the revised
requi rements.

-------
4
6. If a SIP revision complies with the onginal but not the
revised requirements, and such lack of compliance renders the SIP as a
whole substantially inadequate to assure the attainment and maintenance
of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the revised
requirements, an individual analysis of the appropriateness of grand—
fathering under the four—part test established in the Sierra Club case
discussed above under Legal Background must be conducted. If the analysis
concludes that grandfathering of the particular SIP revision is appropriate,
action may be based on the original requirements. in such an event,
however, additional actions may be necessary depending upon the nature of
the SIP revision being considered.
a. For SIP revisions (e.g., variances and interim emission
lmits) which would have an effective lifetime of 2 years or less from
the date of EPA final rulemaking, no additional action will generally be
taken, because of the length of time it would take for the State and EPA
to change the action to comport with the revised requirements. Any
subsequent requests for the continuation of grandfathering (i.e., beyond
the effective lifetime of the original SIP revision) should be rejected.
b. For SIP revisions which would otherwise have an effective
lifetime of greater than 2 years, other rulemaking actions will be necessary
to assure that the SIP ultimately comports with the revised requirements.
(1) Elements in plans that have been conditionally”
approved will be approved subject to the further condition that the
plan as a whole be corrected as necessary to assure full compliance with
all requirements of the Clean Air Act. For a discussion of EPA ’s orig nal
policy on conditional approval, see 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979), 44 FR
38583 (July 2, 1979) and 44 FR 67182 (November 23, 1979).
(ii) Elements in fully approved plans will be approved with
the simultaneous issuance of a CAA Section 11O(a)(2)(H) notice of deficiency.
Under either of these circumstances, the approval of the particular SIP
revision should contain a sunset provision that terminates the effectiveness
of the approval within a predetermined period, generally 2 years. In addi-
tion, the Region should make an affirmative effort to assure that the
timeframe (generally 2 years) for complete, fully adopted State rulemaking
action involved with either the notice of SIP deficiency or conditional
approval is strictly adhered to. If a State does not adhere to this
schedule, the Region will initiate appropriate steps to ensure ultimate
compliance, e.g., performance—based grant actions, sanctions, and EPA
promulgations.

-------
5
7. Certain classes of changes are only indirectly related to
attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards.
Such changes may involve PSD/NSR rules, stack height provisions, permit
fees and similar generic requirements which are clearly not intended to
be permanently grandfathered. Changes of this type are to be handled as
described in paragraph 6 above.
C. All new requirements Issued by OAR or OGC will address their impact
on SIP revisions previously approved or pending, and SIP revisions to be
submitted in the future. New requirements will contain provisions incor-
porating the general grandfathering guidance (paragraph A above) whenever
appropriate and possible. Generally, changes in EPA ’s requirements will
have effective dates which are 60 days from the date of signature to allow
States to adjust their pending rulemaking actions before they are finally
adopted and submitted. Longer effective dates should be used when the
changed requirements affect fundamental, long-term air quality strategy
development tools and the requirements of the change are resource inten-
Si ye.
0. SIP revisions framed to meet major requirements currently being recon-
sidered by EPA or currently under litigation should proceed and will not
be held back from rulemaking until the issues are decided. SIP revisions
approved under these circumstances will be addressed, if necessary, as
described in paragraph B(6)(b) above for revised EPA SIP requirements and
by paragraph 8(2) for requirements being changed because of court decisions.
E. Staff personnel making grandfatherjng decisions Should coordinate with
Offices of Regional Counsel or OGC on application of this guidance as appro-
priate, especially in connection with the analysis required under paragraph
8(6) above.
F. Each Federal Register notice for action on a SIP revision will state
the rationale for which requirements were applied.

-------
tD374 . PN 110-88-06-17-094
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1 7 JUN 1288
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RepresentatiVe Emission Condjt1ons
ed Exceedance Determinations
FROM:
t Division (MD—15)
TO: Gary O’Neal, Director
Air and Toxics Division, Region X
On May 9, 1988, you requested further written guidance on determining
attainment with a statistical based standard (e.g., a standard that is
attained when the expected number of exceedances per year is less than or
equal to one). In ir March 8, 1988 memorandum, I stated that a State could
use more than 3 years of data, provided the additional years are represent-
ative of current emission conditions. Specifically, you requested guidance
on what is meant by representative of current conditions.
In your May 9 memorandum, you stated:
We feel that there are a number of technical issues which
are important and need to be addressed in any guidance for
determining the representativefleSs of past emissions conditions.
These include temporal and spatial considerations as well as
emissions characteristics. All parameters which affect the
ambient concentrations at a specific monitoring site n ist remain
esentially constant.
You went on to state that:
It is important that we clearly indicate that EPA does not
consider a demonstration that the total area-wide mass eni ssions
have remained constant to be an adequate demonstration that the
conditions which affect a specific monitoring site have not
changed.
Although we are in general agreement with the concept of those
suggestions, we need to expand on their applicabilitY.

-------
2
The reason for promulgating a statistical form of the standard was to
recognize the variations that exist both in the meteorology and emissions.
Therefore, “representative of current conditions” does not mean that no
variation has occurred in either meteorology or emissions. However, e
variations which have occurred should be random and not subject to human
control. For example, some winters are warmer than others, requiring less
use of wood stoves for heating, resulting in lower annual wood stove
emissions. Such variations would be normal and would be “representative
of current conditions.”
On the other hand, we agree that major shifts in emission patterns
could affect the representativeness of the data even if the total quantity
of the emissions are approximately the same. For example, shifts from
mobile source to Industrial source volatile organic compound emissions,
from point source to area source emissions, from direct emissions of PMi
to emissions of PM 10 precursors, or from emissions in one location to another,
in general, will affect the representativeness of the data. In addition,
ambient data collected during periods when emissions are reduced due to
poor economic conditions would not be “representative of current conditions.”
In other words, we expect there will be some random variation both
in meteorology and emissions and such variation would not disqualify
data from being considered as representative of current conditions.
However, if major changes in emission trends, type, location, or quantity,
have occurred, we will not consider the data to be representative of
current conditions.
In a related question, you asked “What would constitute an acceptable
monitoring network for use with more than 3 years of data? TM The monitoring
network requirements are published in 40 CFR 58. These requirements are
to be met for all monitoring years regardless of whether it is 3, 5, or
more years.
If you have any questions, please contact Dave Stonefield of my staff
at FTS 629—5350.

-------
PM 110-88-03-18-093
r UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4L
1 8 MAR 88
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy for Determining Co et es f SIP Submittals
FROM: Gerald A. Emlson, Dire
Office of Air Qualit P 1 an Standards (MD-b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, II , III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Di rector, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Region VII, VIII, X
Today I am forwarding to you a policy (attached) concerning the
screening of Incoming SIP packages to determine whether their contents
justify EPA review and action or warrant immediate return to the state.
It provides objective criteria for the Regional Offices to use in deter-
mining completeness for review. It also will assist State and local
agencies in the preparation of SIP packages. Regional Offices should
discuss these requirements with their States and nipIement the policy as
soon as possible.
During the course of the Agency’s assessment of the SIP processing
system, the problem of processing packages that were deficient (e.g., no
clearly specified emission limits, test procedures, averaging times,
legal authority) was identified early on. Some Regions believed that
there was no legal option and put such deficient packages into the usual
review cycle, delaying response to the State and needlessly consuming
valuable resources. Our current judgment is that with appropriate cri-
teria defined, It is legal for E PA to return deficient SIPs because they
are incomplete and inadequate to. trigger the requirement for EPA review.
Certain Regional Offices hake adopted their own procedures to screen
out of the review loop patently deficient submittals and have operated
without problems for many years; perhaps the most successful of these

-------
2
procedu es was developed in Region I. The attached policy, based on the
Region I approach, is being adopted at this time as national procedure
for use by all Regional Offices.
Although this policy is immediately effective, EPA Intends to publish
regulations formally setting out these completeness criteria to further
assist States In preparing SIP revisions. This will be done as part of the
general Federal Register notice we will be publishing this spring on the
complete SIP processing reform effort. This policy will provide guidance
to Regional offices and States until the criteria are formalized in final
regul ations.
Note that this policy deals only with the adequacy of a SIP sub-
mittal for purposes of review. Completeness review is intended to
be done promptly, based on objective criteria. It is not intended to
focus on the approvability of the proposed change (which often may involve
extensive technical review and subjective professional judgment). As a
general rule, the reviewer should err on the side of processing a SIP
submittal of questionable completeness rather than injecting the issue of
approvability versus completeness into discussions with the State. On
the other hand, if a submittal Is clearly incomplete and there are also
deficiencies with regard to approvability, all such information should be
transmitted to the State. As an alternative, of course, EPA can always
process a disapproval of the submittal.
This policy is intended to provide a quick screen of incoming packages
so that unreviewable SIPs are promptly returned to the State for incorpora-
tion of missing items. Used properly by the Regional Offices, scarce
review resources will be conserved and needless delays will be avoided;
used properly by your State and local agencies as a guide in SIP preparation,
we should see a decline in unreviewable packages accompanied by an improve-
ment in the overall quality of SIP submittals.
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Region I—X
Regional Counsel (Air Branch Chiefs), Regions I—X
Craig Potter
Don Clay
Robert Cahill
Alan Eckert
John Calcagni
John Seitz
Bob Wayland

-------
bcc: Work Group Members
BlU Laxton
Jack Farmer
Rich Ossias
Peter Wyckoff
Bern Steigerwald
Mike Mushin
3

-------
OAR :03—04-88
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATIONS OF SIP REVISION SUBMITTALS
mt roducti on
EPA is instituting the following policy for determining whether SIP
revision submittals are administratively and technically complete for
processing via federal rulemaking. The objective is to return promptly
fund nentally unreviewable SIP submittals to the State for corrective
action. This policy is expected to provide the following benefits:
1. Improved quality of the State subniittals received for processing.
2. Fewer SIPs being disapproved for inadequacies related to Issues that
are simply not addressed.
3. More efficient use of EPA’s resources In SIP reviews, and In the
preparation of Federal Register actions directed to those State
submittals requiring EPA approval or disapproval based upon relevant,
substantive issues.
4. More efficient use of State resources in SIP preparation with the
delineation of criteria by which to prepare adequate submittals.
The following policy contains the criteria to be used by States in
preparing submittal packages and by EPA to evaluate such submittals
in order to make completeness deter,i inations. It also provides sample
letters for conm un1cating those determinations to State Agencies. The
information Is presented in two parts: submittals for Sequential Processing
and submittals for Parallel—Processing.
I. SIP REVISIONS SUBMITTED FOR SEQUENTIAL PROCESSING
Determining Completeness
SIP revisions that are submitted for EPA approval via the sequential
rulemaking process involve revisions that have been through all of the
necessary State procedures, and have been finally adopted (e.g. regula-
tions, regulatory &nendments) or finally issued (e.g. operating permits,
consent agreements, State orders). These revisions are formally submitted
to EPA for approval and incorporation into the SIP. Under sequential
processing, EPA may conduct traditional rulemaking (publishing both
proposed and final actions) or direct final rulemaking (publishing a
final action without a prior proposed action). Basically, these submittals
must include:
- N

-------
2
° a letter from the appropriate State official requesting that EPA
app”ove the enclosed revision;
o evidence that the necessary public notice was given and a public
hearing was held;
a document (regulation, permit, State order) fully adopted/issued
and enforceable by the requesting agency for incorporation by refer-
ence with its effective date clearly indicated, and
o the technical support necessary to demonstrate that approval of the
revision will not violate ambient air quality standards or PSD
Increments, will not interfere with RFP, and is consistent with
requirements for maintenance of ambient standards (note: different/
additional technical support may be approp”iate depending upon the
nature of the revision).
Upon receipt of a SIP revision request for approval via sequential processing,
Regional Offices a—e to use the checklist found at Attachment 1 to deteinirie
completeness. Once these criteria have been established in regulatory
form, Regional Offices should follow the relevant regulations.
Regions are to institute procedures whereby each SIP revision request is
determined to be complete or incomplete within 45 days of receipt. When
a submittal has been determined to be complete, the Region should send a
letter to the requesting official confirming receipt of a complete submittal
and fnformir t iat official of EPA’s general processing schedule. Please
see the sample lette’ found at Attachment 2.
When a submittal IS determined incomplete, a letter should be sent to the
requesting official returning the submittal and detailing its deficiencies,
both administrative and technical. Please see the sample letter found at
Attachment 3. The letter may also state that if the revision is resubmitted
in its current forrn,.EPA will publish a notice proposing to disapprove
the request.
Care must be taken to Insu”e that SIP submittals that are determined
incomplete are, in fact, returned on those grounds. This requires that
the reviewer make the completeness determination based on the lack of
necessary components of the submittal rather than on whether the contents
of the submittal are approvable.
This determination can be difficult and judgment will be needed. For
example, a SIP revision may request that EPA approve a permit/orderf

-------
3
consent agreement issued to a single source to reduce its emissions.
Examination of the document nay reveal that it contains no emission rate.
If the action clearly warrants the incorporation of an emission rate
(e.g., modeling support assumed an emission rate), then the submittal is
incomplete.
Alternatively, the submittal may contain an emission rate not expressed
in accordance with our enforcement policy memoranda for acceptable forms
of emission rates. In this case the issue is not completeness, but
whether the emission rate as submitted Is approvable. As another example,
take the case where a submittal’s emission rate(s) Involves a bubble
and/or long term averaging. The emission rate(s) as expressed may be
acceptable. However, the Emission Trading Policy requires technological
and economic justification beyond the usual technical support necessary
for a single source SIP revision. If the justifications are missing from
the submittal, it should be determined incomplete and returned to the
State on those grounds.
II. SIP REVISIONS SUBMITTED FOR PARALLEL-PROCESSING
SIP revisions that are submitted for EPA approval via the parallel rule-
making process involve revisions that are concurrently undergoing the
necessary State procedures for adoption or final issuance. These revisions
are submitted to EPA by the State Agency in the form of proposed regula-
tions or proposed permits/orders/consent ag eements. EPA initiates the
federal rulemaking process by preparing a notice of pr oposed rulemaking
on the submittal. EPA subsequently takes final action on the States’
formal submittal of the SIP revision once it is finally adopted at the
State level.
Determining Completeness
Making completeness determinations for States’ requests to parallel—
process SIP revisions requires evaluations of proposed State actions.
(A second, separate completeness determination must later be made on the
formal submittal.)
Basically, a SIP revision request f r parallel—processing must include:
° a letter from the appropriate St ate official requesting parallel—
processing of the enclosed revision,
° a schedule for completing the adoption/issuance process at the
State level,

-------
4
a proposed or draft document (regulation, permit, state order, consent
agreemeht) that wifl eventually be adopted/issued by the State and
formally submitted as a SIP revision, and
o sufficIent technical support to evaluate the proposed revision’s
impact on air quality and conformance with federal statutes, regulations
and policies.
Regions are to use the checklist found at Attachment 1 for determining if
a parallel—processing request Is adequate to initiate the federal rulemaking
process. (Again, once the criteria are adopted as regulations, Regional
Offices should look to the relevant regulations.) The Region should
determine whether the draft/proposed revision is adequate within 45 days
of receipt of the request to parallel process and advise the State promptly.
When a submittal is determined adequate to initiate the fede-al approval
process, the Region should so inform the requesting State official. That
letter should remind the State of the necessity of a complete formal
submittal in order for EPA to take final rulemaking action (please see
the sample letter found at Attachment 2).
Similarly, when the completeness review indicates that the submittal in fo’
parallel—processing is not adequate to initiate federal rulemaking, a
lette— should be sent explaining the deficiencies, and returning the
draft submittal (please see the sample lette’ found at Attachment 3).
After the State completes the final adoption/issuance process, the SIP
revision request is formally submitted to EPA exactly as required unde—
sequential rulemaking. The Regions are to use the checklist found at
Attachment 1 (and eventually the regulatory checklist) to determine if
the formal submittal is complete. EPA can only take final ulemaking
actions on formal submittals of adopted regulations and final permits,
orde—s, consent agreements, etc.
As before, the Regions are to send a letter to the requesting State official
within 45 days of receipt of the formal submittal stating that it is
complete or, alternatively, that the submittal is incomplete, outlining
the deficiencies, and returning the submittal.

-------
Sr ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4
DEC 2 3 1987 PN 110-87-12-23-092
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Expanded Use of Direct Final SIP Processing
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director Orig naI Signed Bj
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD—b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX.
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
As you know, recommendations for improving SIP processing at EPA
have been presented to the Deputy Administrator and were approved in
full. Moreover, it is the intention of Agency management that the
recommendations be implemented promptly. An intra—agency work group,
led by OAQPS with representation from each Regional Office, is taking the
necessary action to put these wide—ranging recommendations into place. The
work group goal is to have all transition activities completed by early
summer. One recommendation involves the expanded use of direct final rule-
making procedures. The recommendation concerned not only more frequent use
of direct final where appropriate but also more aggressive application of the
concept. Consequently, it is Air Programs’ policy to achieve increased use
of direct final processing consistent with previously published criteria.
Proposed in 1981 and finalized in 1982 (46 FR 44477, September 4, 1981
and 47 FR 27073, June 23, 1982), direct final has been used to great advantage
by several Regional Offices in the intervening years. Under our current
direct final procedures, SIP actions that are noncontroversial in nature and
where no adverse public coment is expected can be processed as direct final
rules. This type of processing has been demonstrated to cut the review time
in half. Since its inception, hundreds of changes have gone direct final
with very few engendering any adverse public comment (which under existing
procedures would require withdrawal of the change, followed by full review
and comment processing).

-------
2
This history of very little public intervention suggests that we are not
using as well as we might an effective tool for speeding review and decision
making on SIPs. In addition, it appears that the use of the direct final
approach has not been consistent across all Regional Offices. Some have been
reluctant, for various reasons, to take fufl advantage of the mechanisnl.
Table 1 shows usage by Region for the last three years. Although direct
final was used for 17% of total SIP actions, the variation in use by Region
is substantial——ranging from a low of 5% to a high of 31%. Significantly,
during these three years, only 2 of 134 packages were withdrawn because of
adverse comment. Each Region should evaluate, in conjunction with the Regional
Counsel, its use of the direct final procedure. Table 2 lists some examples
of SIPs successfully processed as direct final. Please review the categories
on this list, and any other appropriate categories, and identify additional
opportunities for direct final processing by your Region. By January 29,
1988, please send to John Calcagni a memorandum outlining the Region’s effort
to increase direct final actions.
A wide variety of SIP actions can be candidates for direct final, the
primary criteria being that the action be noncontroversial and that no adverse
public comment is anticipated. These actions do not have to be limited to
trivial administrative changes. While we clearly do not want to abuse a good
thing and diminish public confidence in our review procedures, it is intended
that we make full use of this valuable tool. Although the risk of aggressive.
action is a possible increase in the niunber of SIPs drawing comment, this
risk should be more than offset by the expected improvement in timely process
and in numbers processed, without jeopardizing air quality.
Until final approval authority is delegated to the Regional Admfi istrat6Fc,
all direct final actions will have to come to Headquarters for processing.
Headquarters will continue to track the use of direct final, not only in terms
of numbers by Region, but also the kinds of SiP changes involved. However,
to keep in the spirit of the SIP reform recommendations, Headquarters will
not challenge a Regional Office decision to go direct final that is consistent
with existing guidance. Moreover, my office and OGC will gladly consult with
you on any specific cases you wish. At OAQPS, the focal point for questions
concerning direct final actions is Johnnie Pearson (FTS 629-5691).
Attachments
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Reg. I-X
Regional Counsel, Reg. 14
Don Clay
Craig Potter
Joe Lees
Alan Eckert
John Calcagni

-------
bcc: Work Group members
Bill Laxton
Jack Farmer
Rich Ossias
Bern Steigert a1d
Peter Wyckoff
John Seitz
luke A1u hjn
Tom Helms
3

-------
TABLE 1. DIRECT FINAL USAGE
Total Actions Number of % of
Region 3 Years DF’s DF’s
1 79 24 30
II 38 7 18
III 72 7 10
IV 134 42 31
V 241 11 5
VI 46 11 24
VII 58 10 17
VIII 26 5 19
IX 61 10 16
X 48 7 15
TOTAL 803 134 17

-------
TABLE 2
EXAMPLES OF DIRECT FINAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY REGIONS
Amendments to definitions to conform to EPA requirements
o Changes in monitoring/modeling procedures to reference new EPA guidelines
o To incorporate new test methods by reference
o Single source SIP revision that makes a State’s requirement more stringent
o Public availability of emissions data
o Permit fees
o Compliance schedules for 111(d) plans
o Visibility plans
o 111(d) plans
o Site specific alternate RACT
° Stack height regs
0 VOC consent order
o PSD modeling regs
o Minor changes to I/M program
o New opacity regs
o Variances
o Operating permit for Pb SIP
CO redesigndtion

-------
PN 110-87-10—02—091
o Sr.,,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4 L
OCT 021987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Implementation Policies for PM 10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, (NAAQS)
FROM: Darryl 0. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD—15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
Con!nents received from the PM 10 national workshops conducted last
month in Raleigh, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; and
San Francisco, California, have shown that the workshops were extremely
successful and achieved their goal of providing a good understanding of
the need for high quality State implementation plans (SIP’s) and the
methods and techniques to achieve such plans. This would not have been
possible without the strong support of the Regional Offices. Thank you
for your participation and support.
The true success of the workshops can only be measured by the
timeliness and quality of the SIP’s and the ease with which the PM 10
standards are iiT lemented. A number of detailed questions resulted from the
workshops; responses to the questions and elaboration on existing guidance
is thus warranted. This memorandum provides additional clarification and
amplification of implementation issues of an immediate nature. Next
month we plan to issue additional memoranda, including a supplement to
the PM 10 SIP Development Guideline.
We have selected the following issues for early resolution because
they deal with the first steps of the SIP development process or are
important in establishing the overall direction for developing SIP’s.
PMip SIP DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Q. What milestones must be included in the SIP development plans
and nijst those plans show that the SIP’s will be submitted in
9 months?

-------
2
A. In my August 11, 1987, memorandum I outlined the milestones to be
included in the SIP development plans. I asked that the SIP
development plans represent realistic schedules; however, schedules
which extend beyond May 2, 1988, must be justified.
Q. Who is responsible for tracking the States’ progress, and will
sanctions be in osed if a State fails to meet a milestone?
A. The Re ional Offices are primarily responsible for tracking their
States progress in meeting the milestones. We are investigating
the possibility of developing a national bulletin board tracking
system. In any case, we will be calling your staff on a routine
basis to check on the status of the SIP development. The development
plans can be revised and updated occasionally by the States. However,
any extension of the milestone should be justified. Although we
do not anticipate in osing sanctions for missing just one milestone,
the State or local agency’s record for meeting the milestones
will be considered In determining when to in’ ose any sanctions.
SIP REQUIREMENTS
Q. What SIP revisions are necessary in all areas regardless of their
groupi ngs?
A. 1. Most SIP’s identify specific ambient air quality standards
which must be attained or protected, those SIP’s must be
revised to protect the PM . standards. If a SIP requires
protection of any NAAQS, including any new or revised standard,
then it may not need revision. Therefore, all SIP’s should—
be reviewed to ensure that they provide for the attainment
and maintenance of the PM1o standards and that PM 10 is
regulated as a criteria pollutant.
2. Since the SIP n ist protect both the PM 10 standard and the
total suspended particulates (TSP) prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increment, it must trigger preconstruction
review for a major new or modified source which would emit
significant amounts of either TSP or PM1O.
3. The significant harm level or particulate matter was revised
in 40 CFR 51.151 to 600ug/m measured as PM 10 and the combined
sulfur dioxide—particulate matter significant harm level was
deleted. In addition, the example alert, warning, and emergency
levels of particulate matter in Appendix L to Part 51 were
also revised to PM 10 concentrations. Therefore, State emergency
episode plans must be revised to reflect these changes.
4. Revisions to 40 CFR 58 set forth the requirements for design
of national,, State and local PM 10 air monitoring networks. The
revised monitoring networks must be submitted for EPA approval.
The information presented at the PM 10 workshops and included
in the workbook concerning the time required to fully implement
f 1 ,o- 7 .. 08 -,,-ocO

-------
3
the PM 10 network was partially in error. The information
indicated that for national air monitoring stations (HAMS) and
Group I State and local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) must
be operational by August 1, 1988, and the Group 1.1 and III SLAflS
(remainder of the network) must be operational by August 1, 1989.
The regulation actually requires the HAMS and Group I and II
areas to have PM 10 networks operational by August 1, 1988, and
Group III SLAMS (remainder of the network) by August 1, 1989.
Additionally, it is important to reemphasize that the
preferred approach to designing a PM 10 monitoring network is
to review the monitoring objectives the network must address.
The design should include an assessment of existing PM 10
concentrations and patterns, the location of P 1 1 1 0 emission
sources and source category areas, and the consideration of
population and expected growth patterns. Consideration must
also be given to meteorology and topography. If the existing
TSP monitoring sites meet the PMi monitoring objectives the PM 10
network could consist of existing TSP sites only. If not, new PM 10
sites would be required. Further guidance on network design
can be found in the PM1 0 workshop notebook material entitled
Npt j 10 SLAMS Network Design.
EMISSION INVENTORIES
Several questions at the workshops concerned the emission inventory
requirements. Therefore, we prepared summaries of the emission inventory
requirements for each area group. They are shown in Attachment I.
COMMITTAL SIP’s
Q. What format are the States to use for the committal SIP’s?
A. The States should submit a letter committing the State to
carry out the actions prescribed for Group II areas in the
Federal Register notice of July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24681). The
letter must be signed by the State official (agency, board,
or governor) having the authority to obligate State resources
for these purposes. The con iiitments will be incorporated by
reference into the SIP.
Q. When can a Group II area request an extension of the attainment
date under section 110(e) of the Clean Air Act?
A. If a State believes it may need an extension of the attainment
date, it should include a statement in the committal SIP
letter that a 2-year extension of the attainment date may be
requested under section 110(e) of the Clean Air Act. If the
State determines that the Group II area is violating the
PM 10 NAAQS and it cannot develop a control strategy that will
attain the NAAQS within 3 years, the State can then submit
the request for the extension when it submits its SIP revision.

-------
4
REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP III AREAS
Q. Other than the Statewide SIP revisions, are there any other
SIP revisions required for a Group III area?
A. In addition to the statewide SIP requirements, for Group III areas,
the State must cite the control measures it is relying upon to
maintain the PM 10 NAAQS. Control measures that have not been
approved by EPA must be submitted for approval and incorporation
into the SIP. The Regional Offices should establish a schedule
for submission of these revisions.
USE OF AMBIENT PMIp DATA
Q. In the process of placing areas into three groups to prioritize
P 1 1 10 SIP development, a zone of uncertainty was placed around the
PM1O NAAQS when determining the probability that an area would
violate the NAAQS. The PM1O data collected with Sierra Anderson
SA—321A instruments were discounted by 20 percent before calculating
the probability of PM] rj nonattainment for an area. This concept
was explained in footnote 7 on page 24680 of the Federal Register
notice, July 1, 1987, and in Section 2 of the PM 10 SIP Development
Guideline. How does a State consider the zone of uncertainty when
developing the SIP?
A. This procedure of discounting PMIO data from SA-321A monitors was
only to be used for the SIP priorit zation process . When PMi data
from SA—321A instruments are used to determine the attainment
status of an area in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendix K, the
data are to be taken at face value. The data can be discounted
only if the State can demonstrate that the PM 10 monitor was
influenced by coarse particles to the same extent as were the
instruments in the Phoenix study conducted by EPA.
Q. What happens to data that has been flagged as an exceptional event?
A. High ambient values of P1 110 may be flagged by the State when they
are due to exceptional events as described in the “Guideline on the
Identification and use of Air Quality Data Affected by Exceptional
Events” (Guideline). The EPA will review the basis for flagging
the data and concur if the Guideline criteria are met. Use of
the f1agged data for SIP regulatory activities shall be considered
on a case—by—case basis and discussed during the public review
process. Exclusion of the flagged data would only be allowed if the
responsible control agency determines in conjunction with a public
review that it is inappropriate to use the data (Guideline, page 11).
cc: Regional Air Branch Chiefs
PM 10 Contacts
Monitoring Contacts
R. Campbell
C. Carter

-------
ATTACHt1Er I I
Emission Inventory Requirements
States and State—designated local agencies will be required to compile and
submit certain PM and PMpj emission inventory data to EPA. The following
listing summarizes the required and recommended emission inventory data by
area grouping.
Group I Areas
Required For Submittal With PM SIP :
o Base year annual inventory of actual point and area source PM and PM 10
emissions summarized by source category.
— Base year selected based on most recent, high quality data available.
PM data needed for PSD purposes.
o Projected baseline annual inventory of allowable PM emissions for
attainment year summarized by source category.
— Allowable emissions estimated from criteria in Table 9—1 of EPA
Modeling Guideline, including any expected source changes through
attainment year, except for effect of PM 10 SIP control strategy.
o Projected PM 10 SIP strategy annual inventory of allowable PM 1 o emissions
for attainment year summarized by source category.
— Same as projected baseline inventory, except that this inventory also
includes effect of additional controls resulting from implementation
of PM 10 SIP control strategy.
o Detailed point source data for all facilities emitting 50 TPY or more of
PMio based on uncontrolled or uncontrolled potential emissions.
— Data to be submitted in attached example format (version 1) or
equivalent. Detailed point source data needed to review attainment
demonstration analysis and to establish baseline for potential
emissions trading.
Required Annual NEDS Emissions Data Reporting :
o Actual annual emissions of PM/p11 10 * for point sources emitting 100 TPY or
more of this pollutant.
— Includes all such sources in each State, regardless of grouping.
* Reporting for PM through CY—87 data. PM 10 thereafter.

-------
—2—
Group II Areas
Required for submittal on or before August 31, 1990, with determination
report of PN 1 attainment/nonattajnment status and of adequacy of current
SIP to attain and maintain PM NAAQS . Schedule for developing PM 10
inventory data required with Committal SIP by April 30, 1988.
o Current year annual inventory of actual PM and PMjrj emissions summarized
by source category.
— Current year selected based on most recent, high quality data
available. PM data needed for PSD purposes.
o Current year annual inventory of allowable PM and PM 10 emissions
eumarized by source category.
— Allowable emissions as calculated based on criteria in Table 9—1
of EPA Modeling Guideline. EPA will compare actual to allowable
emissions to assess potential for not maintaining PM 10 NAAQS.
Required Compilation, But Submittal Not Required (except as needed to
support assess nts for emissions trading or other purposes under EPA
purview) .
o Detailed point source data for facilities emitting 50 TPY or more of
PM 10 based on actual emissions with any existing controls, as needed,
for sources with potential for emissions trading.
— Data compiled by entering applicable data in attached example format
(version 2) or equivalent. Data needed to establish baseline for
em.tssions trading.
Required Annual NEDS Emissions Data Reporting :
o Actual annual emissions of PM/PN 10 * for point sources emitting 100 TPY
or more of this pollutant.
— Includes all such sources in each State, regardless of grouping.
* Reporting for PM through CY—87 data. PM 1 ç thereafter.

-------
—3—
Group I II Areas
Recommended Compilation, But No Submittal (except as needed to support
assessments for emissions trading or other purposes under EPA purview) .
o Detailed point source data for facilities emitting 50 TPY or more
of PM 10 , based on actual emissions with any existing controls, as
needed, for sources vith potential for emissions trading.
— Data compiled by entering applicable data in attached example format
(version 2) or equivalent.
o Existing PM inveetory maintained and updated.
— Primarily needed for PSD purposes.
Required Annual NEDS Emissions Data Reporting :
o Actual annual emissions of PM/PM 10 * for point sources emitting 100 TPY
or more of this pollutant.
— Includes all such sources in each State, regardless of grouping.
* Reporting for PM through CY—87 data. PM 10 thereafter.

-------
—4—
Other Emission Inventory Recommendations
It is strongly recommended, for Group I areas, that a draft of the
baseline inventory of actual emissions be Submitted for EPA review at least
six months before the SIP is due. In addition, all agencies are encouraged
to develop PM emission inventories (within available time and resources)
for future use in implementing the PM 10 ambient standards.

-------
* S F iUty/PIait lOt
Il I. lt U F1 T F I ASu
P 1110 Laissuims Inf iatIim F
Pru.s,es/f .,satiiiis Usthifl S Point Sceo s VectIily -
ce £at.9o1-y of FacIlity I..,., Petrolma fin.ryli
Si Rivisad 9125/81
C i
FacilIty N ,
Si.. T.w of Innsitory e.g., I9B li
Projected *tlaI it Year (e.g., 1997 1i
Facility L atiai (Street, City, Slat., ZIpc )i
total F lItly lasted titisiims I Year Sa iled (e.g., 10 lime P1 110 — 1901)i
Situal I r$
of Situal
l er alias - 3 erating
Facility Prec.ss (e.g., Oil Fired Siil.r) OS/Point — Rate - 4
ar .ratiim (e.g., I . . ,strlaI Road) — 2 ID I/day) (/yr) ( aiuts/yr)
Projected SIP
Sue Year Si.. Tear Sasel ins SIP Strategy
Siluli I7 Situal P1110 P1110 Strategy P1110
Caissiims tasissais SreetA talcum. Ccmlrol (á)ssiais
- S - 6 factor - 8 Factar - 10 pIicabl. Rigulaliwi
(lm .Fyr) (tra.alyr) — 1 (timely?) — 9 Itlms/yr) — II
Eaissuri
Lisitatim C iia e
—12 Year—I )
i The Parsat presaited in li i i tgi, is recosded far Invenlorying point .rce facilities hat esil IPII aid P1110. Other forsats uith . ilvaIenl infarsatiim say be si stSluted.
2 lr.lid lssiimi iii iId be indicated im a separate line lr naibanbed ..issims aid l sled U such.
3 Indicate both h .rs per day ad I .ri per year of average actual pr ess i erattim averaged over aist recent t yearel.
4 ktual eratlng rate in aisle as specified in the Sauce Clacsificatiai Codes I XI e.g. Uojs.aid gallwis burnedlyr, time org l aiIetlyr, etc.l.
3 Situal total particulate sailer (!P11I esissims In usits of time per year.
6 tual P 5110 essssime in aisle of time per year.
1 Factor used to eclisate Ic reaIa In esliuims 1 to gr th. (e.g., 1.00)
9 Basaline ..sssims lie., rot eccamting (or effects of revised SIP strategy) projected far attain.ent year bawd im aIlca le esissimi linciuding grovth).
9 Factor used to eslisate percent caitrol of P5110 esissims far pr ess or c eratiim resultIng froa revised SIP strategy (e.g., 901).
10 Detersined by epplying percent cmtrol (cimirol factor) to projected basil Ins esIssIms.
‘m applied to hi precess as a mull of the revIsed SIP.
lisilatim saider appIic Ie regutatien e.g., lbs PIll0/IStuI.
scud year of c lI e far qpIIc l. regulatsim (e.g., 1992).

-------
t l 2. CINIil F T F .P I I III ASi s 9fl5l ,
FolIO RaissI s Igifartsti i Fw Individeal
Prus,eas/I erati is Nithin A Point S wc. Facility - I
I(LS FacilstylPiwit lb s S rcs Catsgery of Facility e.g., PstroI Rafl.w y )s
C zs itys hi. Tear of Data e.g., 1991)i
Facility N s Total Facility Rwik.d Ealsitwve & Year luited e. ., 10 less RHO — I%7) s
Facility Locatiai (Street, City, State, Zipc )s
Acluil I rs ho. Year IPtI km. Year PAlO
of Actual (ulssiwis £ .issl w s
erali - 3 e rating pIicabl, (aI msi i
I mciIity Pr r.s (.. ., Oil Fired DasI.rI l(DS/Point Rate 4 Actual - AlImiable - A Actual — 1 Aila ,.tle - S Regulatswi Lisitatiw i
Cr erati i (e.g., In sstrsal bud) — 2 ID (Iday) Ilyr) (i a ntslyr) (l is/yr) (t islyr) (l luIyf) 4t 1 v — 9 — 10
I The for.at presented is this tabi. ii rec dW for inventorying point sGirce facilities that ..il TP1I end PAlO. Other fcreats 11th .qinvalent inforsitiwi
may be sièstlluted.
2 luiked s uus,Ims ahQIId be iftdlcat.d ne a s arata lin fr n iba,ted .uiael is end labeled as s h.
I Indicate both hers per day sell tve rs per year of average actual pr .ss erati i averaged our mt recent ten pears).
4 Actual eatlng rate in ants as icified e the jrce CIaieificatiou Codes ( I (e.g. ll iiu gal lois burnedlyr, ui . w i hu ledIyr, etc.).
S Actual total particulate sitter UP i) esissius in suits of (us per year.
A All le total particulate .utt (IPII) suussius bawd u criteria in CPA l deliiig aldelii.s Lable 9.1 for wuiial averaging period.
1 Actual PAlO esisslus Is ulls of love per year.
O usable RHO suiis.ois (estimated for eiistisig ffi ,, ilatioieIpemsiti) bawd u crit.ri ‘PA deling uideIines Table 91 for .i i.I averagIng period.
9 Iatlo i ap )led to the precess as a result of live revised SIP.

-------
PN 110-87-08-11—090
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
. .ø”
AUG 111987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Development Plan for PM1O S 7Im lerne )t Ton Plans (SIP’s)
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development’&1vis,j ’ (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division
Regions IV, VI
Di rector, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
On July 1, 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published
a notice to promulgate the revised national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter known as PM 10 (52 FR 24634). As a result,
States must revise their SIP’s to attain and maintain the new NAAQS.
Under section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, those SIP revisions must be
submitted to EPA by April 30, 1988 (9 months after the July 31, 1987,
promulgation date).
As you know, we have divided all areas into three groups. Group I
areas have data showing high probabilities that the areas will violate the
PM 10 NAAQS and must submit full SIP’s including attainment demonstrations.
Group II areas do not have adequate data to determine if the areas are
violating the new PM 1 ü NAAQS and must submit a committal SIP. Group III
areas have data showing high probabilities that the areas will attain the
PM 10 NAAQS and need only retain their existing controls. States must
revise the prevention of significant deterioration and monitoring SIP’s for
all areas. The detailed requirements for all these SIP revisions are
described in the PM 10 SIP Development Guideline (EPA 450/2-86-001) and will
be discussed at the P 1 110 workshops.
The development of full PMi SIP’s for Group I areas will vary greatly
among States. Not only do the sources of PM 10 and meteorology vary from one
State to another, the administrative procedures also differ greatly. Thus,

-------
2
it is important that we allow the States flexibility in hot, they proceed
with the development of their SIP’s. On the other hand, it is also important
that we track their progress. Therefore, we are requesting you to work with
each of your States to produce a PM 10 SIP development plan. Those plans
should be submitted to my office by October 15, 1987.
The PM 10 SIP development plan for Group I areas should include deadlines
for the following milestones:
o Data acquisition and analysis
— Completion of the emission inventories
— Completion of analysis of periods of high ambient concentrations
- Completion of chemical/other filter analysis
o Modeling analyses
- Submission of modeling protocol
- Completion of verification of model
- Reconciliation of model results
o Control strategies
- Determination of alternative strategies
— Selection of proposed strategy
o Administrative steps
- Public hearing dates
- Adoption of SIP into State regulations
- Submission of SIP for EPA approval
Several of these dates are also included in the Strategic Planning and
Management System for 1988.
The development plan for committal SIP’S for Group II areas should
include:
o Identification of area of applicability
o Administrative steps

-------
3
— Public hearing dates
— Adoption of SIP into State regulations
- Submission of SIP for EPA approval
The SIP development plan for revi ions to the prevention of significant
deterioration and monitoring provisions should include the administrative
steps:
— Public hearing dates
- Adoption of SIP into State regulations
- Submission of SIP for EPA approval
We are asking you to request the States to notify you upon completion
of, or the inability to complete, each milestone identified. We are not
requesting that monthly status reports be submitted to the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards as we did for the stack height regulation
implementation. However, we expect you to know the status of PM 10 SIP
development in your States.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Kenneth
Woodard at FTS 629-5351.
cc: R. Bauman
R. Campbell
G. Emison
0. Stonefield
K. Woodard
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
NSR Contacts
PMi Regional Contacts

-------
PN 110-87-07-21-089
S7 4 ).
___ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4,

2 1 JUL 1987
PEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s)
FROM: G. T. Helms, thief
Control Progr iis Operations Branch (MD—is)
TO: Carl Walters, Chief
Air Branch, Region VII
On April 17, 1987, I Issued a memoranduti recommending that the
definition of VOC’s be standardized by the States and that references to
vapor pressure cutoffs, I.e. 0.1 mmHg be excluded from such definitions.
The reason for this recommendation was based on the necessity to be con-
sistent with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) photochemical
reactivity policy. This reactivity policy only exempts specific compounds
as cited in the following Federal Register notices.
42 FR 35314, dated July 8, 1977 exempts
Methane
Ethane
1 ,l ,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform)
Trichi orotri fi uoroethane (Freon 113)
42 FR 38391 , dated August 1 , 1977 — corrects 7/8/77 Federal Register
44 FR 32042, dated June 4, 1979 and 45 FR 32424, dated May 16, 1980
exempts
Methyl Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
45 FR 48941 , dated July 22, 1980 exempts
Trichlorofluoroinethane (CFC-l 1)
Dichiorodifluoromethane (CFC-12)
Chiorodi fluoromethane (CFC-22)
Trifluoromethane (FC—23)
Trichlo’rotri fluoroethane (CFC—l 13)
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC—114)
Chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-1 15)
$( p,. 1 , ,Io- 7-o’-/ -,-7-og 1

-------
2
48 FR 49097, dated October 24, 1983 - proposed ex iiption of
Perchloroethyl ene (never final ized)
Ex iples of VOC’s that would escape control if a vapor pressure
(0.1 mm Hg.) cutoff is included in the definitions are Butyl Carbitol
(used in paints), some oils used in metal rolling; low vapor-pressure,
naptha blends manufactured under various trade marks and various acetate
compounds.
It is our goal in the “ultimate long-term” to standardize the new
definition of VOC In all ozone State impl’ nentation plans so that EPA’s
reactivity policy will not be compromised. In the “short—term” we can
live with the old definition of VOC, provided that the State will issue a
letter to EPA pledging to observe our photochemical reactivity policy.
But, if a State is just entering the formal process to develop and adopt
new regulations or is making appropriate revisions to existing regulations,
we encourage them to correct the inconsistency problem between the
“definition of VOC” and our reacting policy.
I hope that this clarifies our effort to standardize the definition
of VOC. If you have any further questions, please contact me.
cc: Chief, Air Branch
Regions 1—VI and VIII-X
VOC Contacts Regions I-X

-------
PM 110-87—05-11-088
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carohna 2771 1
# (
t I MAY 1997
MEMORANDUM
SU3JECT: Guidance on Accounting for Trends In Particulate
Matter Emission and Air Quality Data
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads,
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD—14)
TO: Director, Mr Management Division, Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region It
Director, Air, Pesticides, & Toxic Management Division, Region IV
Director, Air, Pesticides, & Toxics Division, Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, & X
The new 24—hour and annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) are expressed in tern of expected
annual values. In general. EPA has chosen a 3—year measurement period
for estimating an expected annual average concentration and expected
annual number of 24-hour exceedances. However, it is usually impractical
to wait 3 years to determine whether a SIP control strategy area has
attained the NAAQS and, when averaging is performed over a 3—year period
in which a change in emissions has occurred, the estimate of expected
air quality value can be biased.
Accordingly, Appendix K to 40 CFR 50 permits States and local agencies,
subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator in accordance with
EPA guidance, to use mathematical techniques to adjust expected annual con-
centrations to ensure that they are not inappropriately biased by nonrepre-
sentative data. Appendix K also states that Nm the event of a trend or
shift in emission patterns, either the most current representative year(s)
could be used or statistical techniques or models could be used in conjunc-
tion with previous years of data to adjust for trends.N
This memo provides guidance concerning the appropriateness of such
adjustments. The guidance is intended to (1) distinguish serendipitous and
random changes in emissions from permanent changes, (2) give credit toward
attainment determinations for those emission reductions that are permanent
and legally enforceable, and (3) use mathematical techniques together with
the emission reduction credits, to provide improved estimates of expected
annual values. Adjustment for trends should be evaluated on a case-by-case
bas i s. -

-------
7.
Procedures that simply extrapolate or tnterpolate available air
quality data without considering the reasons for the changes are not
appropriate. However, procedures which account for the contribution
that emissions from various sources make to concentration levels are
appropriate.
Receptor models, together with a modified rollback approach, may
be used to estimate the impact of changes in emissions on ambient con-
centrations. Alternatively, dispersion models may be used.
The following steps should be followed in making the trends
adjustment to areas which have recorded at least 1 year of a r quality
data with no violations of the MAAQS:
(1) Apply the model using the base year emissions and then
the proposed attaInment year (i.e., that year in which no violations
were recorded) emissions. With dispersion models 1 the most recent 5
years of meteorological data should be used for both applications. All
modeling should be In accordance with the Guidellne on Air Quality
Models.
(2) For each receptor or monitoring location to which the
adjustment procedure is applied, determine whether the difference
between the base year and proposed attaInment year measured air quality
concentrations can be attributed to the emission reductions over the
period. If so, then the area could be determined to be in attainment
of the NAAQS if it also satisfies all other criteria for attainment.
This memorandum provides guidance referred to in Appendix K of
40 CFR Part 50 regardIng attainment determinations for PM 10 P{AAQS. It
should not be interpreted as modifying any of the monitoring requirements
attendant on an area being classified as Group I or II under EPA ’s PM 10
development policy. This guidance is also not applicable to attainment
designations under Section 107 of the Clean Air Act for other pollutants.
cc: G. Emison
0. Tyler
ESD Director, Region 1-Vill & X
Director, Office of Policy and Management, Region IX

-------
PH 110-87-09-21-086
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Qualrty PIar ing and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Caro na 27711
2 1 SEP 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: M bient Air Definition
FROM: G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
We are in receipt of your memorandum of August 17, 1987, regarding
ambient air. In response to your request, we have considered the need
for clarification of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) policy
on prevention of significant deterioration (P50) increment consumption on
rooftops and whether the May 16, 1985, Regional Meteorologists memo needs
to be revised to avoid ambiguous guidance.
With respect to PSD increments and rooftops, EPA’s policy is contained
in Joseph Cannon ’s memo of June H, 1984. As you correctly pointed out,
PSD increment consumption does not apply at the tops of buildings. With
respect to the Regional Meteorologists memo, that memo does- not attempt
to define ambient air beyond what is currently contained in the Code of
Federal Regulations and clarified by Senator Randolph in 1980. The
meteorologists memo addresses technical modeling concerns and states that
for model ng purposes , receptors will be placed everywhere the general
public has access outside of contiguous plant property, e.g., rooftops.
Subsequent decisions on use of the pollutant concentrations calculated at
the receptors is determined by the definition of ambient air and EPA
policy and guidance, such as the Cannon memo. Thus, we conclude that the
meteorologists memo contains clear guidance on the placement of receptors
when modeling and the Cannon memo defines rooftops as not ambient air
when calculating increment consumption.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
cc: Joseph Tikvart
Richard Rhoads
Darryl Tyler

-------
PN 110-87-08-11-085
MEMORANDUM
Director,
Regions
Di rector,
Region I
Dl rector,
Regions
Dl rector,
Regions
fl AUG 1987
Air Management Division
I, I II , V, IX
Air and Waste Management Division
I
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
IV, VI
Air and Toxics Division
VII, VIII, X
Most pending TSP SIP actions fall into one of the following categories:
1 Those written specifically to control TSP to meet a
Part D nonattainment requirement;
2. Those which are not (or portions of which are not)
directly related to a Part D requirement but discuss
the TSP standard;
3. Those which are not directly related to the TSP
standard and do not discuss the TSP standard; and
4. SectIon 107 nonattalnment/attainment redesignatlons.
Table 1 Includes a list of pending SIP submittals and recommended
actions. Table 2 includes a list of SIP subr ittals which have been
proposed for approval or disapproval by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Pending and proposed SIP’s would be handled the same.
Because SIP’s are constantly being submitted and processed, these tables
should be considered as indicative of the general TSP SIP status, not an
absolute record.
NOTE: Tables 1 and 2 are not included in the
Policy and Guidance Notebook.
• tO Sri,
4 L
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SUBJECT: Processing of Particulate Matter State Implementation Plan
Revisions
FROM: / Gerald A,
d a rd s
(,IZ.Off Ice of Air Quality Planning an
TO:
The promulgation of
standard (PM 10 ) raises a
particulates (TSP) State
State or local agencies.
and processing these TSP
the revised particulate matter ambient air quality
policy Issue as to how to process total suspended
implementation plan (SIP) revisions proposed by
This memorandum suggests a method for categorizing
SIP’s.

-------
2
With the PM 10 standard, a SIP written specifically to control TSP to
meet a Part D nonattainment plan requirement is no longer mandatory. The
State should be notified of the change in the standard and be given
the option to withdraw, modify, or amend these SIP actions. The EPA
will continue to process these revisions unless and until a State asks
us to stop. An example of this situation would be the revision to the
Michigan iron and steel regulations (#3047). The Michigan SIP included
reasonably available control technology regulations for iron and steel
sources which were submitted specifically to meet a previous Part D
conditional approval. The EPA will continue to approve or disapprove this
SIP action unless it is withdrawn by the State. If the proposal is
judged to include more stringent provisions, our general policy would be
to approve it. If It is judged to result in a relaxation, our general
policy would be to disapprove it unless it is accompanied by an acceptable
demonstration that the PM 10 standard will be attained and maintained.
Where only a portion of the SIP action refers to the old standard, it
may be possible to revise the Federal Register notice to approve a portion
of it; thus, we will work with the Regional Offices to develop appropriate
revisions to the rulemaking. An example of this situation would be the
Tennessee variance request (#3376) which refers to the TSP standard but
was not prepared specifically to meet a Part D requirement.
If the SIP action is not directly related to the old standard and
does not discuss the old standard, it will probably affect particulate
matter generally. An example of this situation would be the revision to
the North Carolina opacity regulations (#3380). The North Carolina
regulations are not directly related to the old particulate matter standard.
These can be processed as before.
We will continue to accept a request by the State to revise area
designations for TSP from nonattainment to attainment. The requests will
continue to be reviewed during the transition period for compliance with
EPA ’s redesignation policies as issued in menorandtnus dated April 21
1983, and September 30, 1985.
I have Instructed my staff to process the remaining TSP SIP’s as
described herein. If you have any questions, please contact
Ted Creekaore at (FTS) 629—5699.
Attachments

-------
cc: Chief, Air Branch Regions I—X
R. Campbell
D. Rochlin
J. Silvasi
1. Creekmore
K. Woodard
0. Stonefield
J. Yarn
D. deRoeck
B. Gilbert
J. Sableski
B. Bauuan
P. Wyckoff
3

-------
PN 110-87-07-29-084
Q Sr 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
o -
JUL 2 91987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: State Implementation Plans for ulfur Dioxide
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Direc
- Office of Air Quality P anning and Standards (MD—b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
A number of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) State implementation plan (SIP)
revision rulemaking actions with potential problems have recently been
submitted for SIP processing. Several of these rulemaking actions
establish 502 emission limitations but lack enforceable SO 2 compliance
test methods and procedures.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that SO 2 SIP
emission limitations be established consistent with the short—term 3—hour
and 24—hour SO 2 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). When a
State adopts an SO 2 emission limitation for its SIP without a stated
averaging period associated with It, EPA has accepted a Method 6 stack
gas test as the SIP compliance test method. The EPA also accepts continuous
emissions monitoring and short-term fueling sampling and analysis (3—hour
and 24-hour) as SO 2 SIP test methods. The EPA will accept separate
emission limitations with approved test methods associated with each
limitation.
As a minimum, make sure that there is a stack gas compliance test in
the State’s plan when you review and forward SO 2 rulemaking packages for
Headquarters approval. If the action is an 502 SIP revision, it may
reference the underlying EPA approved SIP for compliance test methods.
If so, make sure the underlying SIP contains acceptable test methods and
that the methods have been approved by EPA in the SIP.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I—X
John Seitz, SSCD
Darryl Tyler, CPDD

-------
PN 110-87-04—30-083
, c.O Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality P!anning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4 puo1 ’
3:; -
EMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pinbient Air
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD .-15)
TO: Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air Branch, Region V
My staff and I have discussed the five ambient air cases which you
submitted for our review on January 16, 1987. The following comments are
our interpretation of the ambient air policy . However, this memorandum
is not a discussion of the technical issues involved In the placement of
receptors for modeling.
Our comments on each of the cases follow:
Case 1 (Dakota County, MN): This case involves two noncontiguous
pieces of fenced property owned by the same source, divided by a public
road. We agree that the road is clearly ambient air and that both fenced
pieces of plant property are not.
case 2 (Warrick County, IN): This case Involves two large sources
on both sides of the Ohio River. We agree that receptors should be located
over the river since this is a public waterway, not controlled by the
sources. We also agree that the river does Indeed form a sufficient
natural boundary/barrier and that fencing is not necessary, since the
policy requires a fence or other physical barrier. However, some con-
ditions must be met. The riyerbank must be clearly posted and regularly
patrolled by plant security. It must be very clear that the area is not
public. Any areas where there is any question——i.e., grassy areas, etc.——
should be fenced and marked, even if there is only a very remote possi-
bility that the public would attempt to use this property.
However, we also feel thatcurrent policy requires that receptors
should be placed in ALCOA and SIGECO property for modeling the contribu-
tion of each source’s emissions to the other’s bient air. Thus,
ALCOA’s property——regardless of whether it is fenced——is still “ambient
air” in relation to SIGECO’s emissions and vice—versa.

-------
—2—
Case 3 (Wayne County, M l): This case involves the air over the
Detroit River, the Rouge River and the Short—cut Canal. We agree that
the air over all three of these is ambient air, since none of the companies
owns them or controls public access to them. Note, however, that one
source’s property——regardless of whether it is fenced-—is the “ambient
air” relative to another source’s emissions.
Case 4 (Cuyahoga County, OH): This case involves LIV Steel’s iron
and steel mill located on both sides of the Cuyahoga River.
We do not feel that LIV Steel “controls’ 1 the river traffic in that
area sufficiently to exclude the public from the river, whether it be
recreational or industrial traffic. The fact that there is little or no
recreational traffic in that area is not sufficient to say that all river
traffic there is LIV traffic. The public also includes other industrial
users of the river that are not associated with LIV.
It is difficult to tell from the map whether the railroad line is a
through line or not. If the railroad yard serves only the plant then It
would not be ambient air but the railroad entrance to the plant would
have to be clearly marked and patrolled. However, if the line is a
through line then that would be ambient air. We would need additional
information to make a final determination.
The unfenced river boundaries should meet the same criteria as in
Case 2 above.
Case 5 (involves the placement of receptors on another source’s
fence4-property): As mentioned above in Case 2, we feel that present
policy does require that receptors be placed over another source’s property
to measure the contribution of the outside source to Its neighbor’s
ambient air. To reiterate, Plant A’s property is considered “ambient
air” in relation to Plant B’s emissions.
I hope that these comments are helpful to you and your staff. This
memorandum was also reviewed by the Office of General Counsel
CC: S. Schneeberg
P. Wyckoff
R. Rhoads
D. Stonefield
Air Branch Chiefs, Recion I—X

-------
PN 110-87-04-30-082

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
‘ Office of Air Quality Piannin g and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
0 r ,—..
1,,-j
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Mibient Air
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Controlled Programs Operations Branch (MD—15)
TO: Bruce Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
My staff and I have discussed the five situations involving the
definition of ambient air that you sent on Dec nber 18, 1986. The
following convnents represent our Interpretation of the ubient air
policy. However, this m norandt, i Is not a discussion of the technical
issues involved in the plac ent of receptors for modeling. Our comments
on each scenario follow:
Scenario One: We agree with you that the road and the unfenced
property are ambient air and could be locations for the controlling receptor.
Scenario Two: We agree with your determination in this case also.
Scenario Three: We agree witti you that the road Is ambient air,
However, Area B is not ambient air; it is land owned or controlled by the
company and to which public access Is precluded by a fence or other
physical boundary.
Scenario Four: We do not think that any of the barriers mentioned
here are sufficient to preclude public access so as to allow the source
to dispense with a fence. An- example of an unfenced boundary that would
qualify is a property line along a river that Is clearly posted and
regularly patrolled by security guards. Any area, such as grassy areas
that might even r notely be used by the public, would have to be fenced
even in this situation, We would not think that a drainage ditch would
meet these criteria,
Scenario Five: Both fenced pieces of plant property, even though
noncontiguous, would not be considered ambient air (see Scenario Three).
The road, of course, would be ambient air. Again, ownership and/or
control of the property and public access are the keys to ambient air
determination.

-------
—2-
I hope that these comments are helpful to you and your staff. This
memorandum was also reviewed by the Office of General Counsel. Please
call me if you have any comments.
cc: S. Schneeberg
P. Wyckoff
R. Rhoads
D. Stonefield
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X

-------
PN 110-87—04-17-081
£r
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I ‘ v Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1? APR 198?
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of VOC
FROM: G. 1. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD—15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Attached is a copy of a letter addressed to the State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, dated February 27, 1987, cOncerning the
definition of uvolatile organic compounds (VOC). 1 ’
M stated in the letter, UNO VOC rules will be approved by USEPA
unless VOC is substantively defined as all organic compounds except those
that USEPA has listed as negligibly photochemically reactive in its
Federal Register notices,u This is USEPA’s current policy.
In light of the post—1987 ozone policy and in order to ensure national
consistency in the definition of VOC, State regulations with definitions
that include a vapor pressure cutoff such as 0.1 mm Hg or 0.0019 PSIA
that effectively exempts some photochemically reactive compounds from
control must be revisited and revised as necessary.
The definition of VOC as cited in the letter or the definition cited
in 40 CFR 60, Subpart A, 60.2, would be approved by USEPA; however, the
recommended definition for VOC is as follows:
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC ) — Any organic compound which
participates in atmospheric photocheiiical reactions; that is, any
organic, compound other than those which the Administrator designates
as having negligible photochemical reactivity, VOC may be measured
by a reference method, an equivalent method, an alternative method
or by procedures specified under 40 CFR Part 60. A reference method,
an equivalent method, or an alternative method, however, may also
measure nonreactive organic compounds. In such cases, an owner or
operator may exclude the nonreactive organic compounds when determining
compliance with a standard.

-------
2
Should you have any questions, please contact me (FTS 629—5526).
Attathnent
cc: Ron Campbell
Gerald Enrison
Jack Farmer
John Rasnic
B. J. Steigerwald
Peter Wyckoff
VOC Regulatory Contact, Regions I-X
VOC Enforcement Contact, Regions I—X

-------
B J
UNITED STATES ENYIRONMENThL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION S
230 SOCTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
EPvt TO t l ry%r:O..
27 FEB 198’
Michael Hayes, Manager
Division of Air Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 27O6
Dear Mr. Hayes:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the United States nvironmenta1
Protection Agency’s (USEDA) position on the definition of “volatile organic
compounds (VOC)” Ewhich is referred to in Illinois as “volatile organic nateria l
(VOM)”),
No YOC rules will be approved by USE unless VOC is substantively defined as
all organic compounds except those that USEPA has listed as negligi .51y
photochecnically reactive in its Federal Register notices. A vapor pressure
cutoff (e.g., 0.0019 psia) effectively exempt5 ome photochemically reactive
compounds from control and, therefore, a vapor pressure cutoff is not a
suitable means to adjust the stringency of a rule. rnstead, it would be
more appropriate to develop suitable emission limits which reflect the
application of reasonably available control technology.
The following definition, which has been proposed by the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, would be approved by USEPA:
Any organic materials which participate in atmospheric photochemica)
reactions or are measured by the apphcable reference methods specified
under any subpart of 40 CFR 60 unless spec ifically exempted from
this definition.
I would also like to inform you that the Ohio state rule definition of
“volatile organic compound” has been revised (with an effective date of
May 9, 1986) by the Ohio nvjronmental Protection Agency. The revised
definition of “volatile organic compound” no longer contains a vapor
pressure cutoff and is consistent with the above stated USEPA requiremen
Sincerely yours,
J7- e )
David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division (5A- 6)
cc: r)arryl Tyler, CPor

-------
YI’ SL,
f U Sr 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
‘
JAN 201987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determination of Economic Feasthility
FROM: G. 1. Helms, Chief -
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Bruce Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of December 23, 1986, requesting
guidance in making economic infeasibility determinations for a company.
It is our opinion that averaging volatile organic compound emissions
over a 30—day period in order to demonstrate compliance should not generally
be allowed. If reasonably available control technology (RACT) as cited
in the control technique guideline document is found to be unreasonable
for a specific company, then on a case—by-case basis a less restrictive
RACT determination can be made. This policy is articulated in the supple-
ment to the general preamble on RACT (44 FR 53761, 9/17/79) (copy attached)
RACT must be a case—by—case determination which should rely on the entire
record. Further, any resultant new or revised emission limit developed
as an alternative RACT should contain a daily compliance technique, not a
long—term compliance technique. (Long—tern averaging should never be
employed to disguise the fact that a RACT emission limitation is being
relaxed. Unless recordkeeping presents an insurmountable problem, adjust-
ments should be made in the RACT number, not in the averaging time.)
You may not be aware that OAQPS reviewed and provided staff comments
on Region IV’s method for determining the economic feasibilityfinfeasibility
of a company to comply with control strategies. As was stated in this
June 19, 1985, memorandum from John Calcagni to me (copy attached) there
are too many confounding factors to establish firm decision rules for
technological or economic feasibility which would apply in every case.
It is hoped that this clarifies our recommendation for precedures to
be followed in determining economic infeasibility for a company. If you
have any questions on the policy for RACT, please contact me at FTS
629—5526.
Attachments
NOTE: The Federal Register notice and the
6/19/85 memorandum mentioned above are
not included in the Policy and Guidance
Notebook.

-------
2
cc: John Calcagni
Ron Campbell
Darryl Tyler
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
VOC Regulatory Contact, Regions I—X

-------
PN 110-87-01-08—079

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Pa’k, North Carolina 27711
JA ‘Z37
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Seasonal VOC Control Policy
FROM: T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD.z15)
TO: Frank Giaccone, Chief
Air Compliance Branch, Region II
This is in response to your memorandum of December 5, 1986, requesting
clarification of my memorandum of September 29, 1986, to Bruce Miller,
Region Iv, concerning seasonal volatile organic compound (VOC) controls.
I am sorry for the delay, but ozone strategy developiient and holidays
nave slowed us down.
Specifically, you requested our office provide a statement with
respect to what EPA policy is regarding the subject of seasonal VOC
controls, and what exceptions EPA Regional Offices can allow, if any.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of our September 29, 1986, memorandi.uri are to be
interpreted as follows: Current policy dictates that seasonal control is
not appropriate for EPA’s ozone control program with two exceptions: (1)
the use of gas-fired afterburners and (2) the use of cutback asphalt
during periods when the temperature is below 50°F or during winter months.
This is EPA’s current policy and the exceptions Regional Offices can
allow. There has been no change to this policy. The gas—fired afterburner
provision was initiated in the mid-1970’s during the “energy crunch.” It
is of questionable relevance today, especially because of fuel availability
and in light of the toxic control implications wnen afterburners are shut
down.
Paragraph 4 of our memorandum was intended to advise that no further
or additional relaxation of this policy was allowable. Region IV had
inquired if modification of SIP requirements (emission limits and/or
extended averaging times) were allowable during seasonal periods (winter
months) for conpl lance purposes. As indicated in the memorandum, our
response was no.

-------
2
It is hoped that this clarifies EPA’s current seasonal VOC control
policy. If you have any questions, please contact me at FIS 629—5526.
cc: Ron Campbell
Steve Hitte
John Rasnic
Darryl Tyler
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
VOC Enforcement Contact, Regions I-X
VOC Regulatory Contact, Regions I—x

-------
PN 110-86-12-10-078
iID S7 4
— UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Pak, North Carolina 27711
L cfit ’
10 DEC 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Rulenaking on State Implementation Plans (SIP’s) for SO 2
FRill: 4’ ’G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD—15)
TO: Air Branch Chief, Region I—X
The Office of International Activities COlA) has advised us that the
Canadian Embassy must be informed of all SO SIP revisions and redesigna-
tions before publication in the Federal Register . Therefore, Regional
Offices must now submit a communications strategy with all proposed and
final SIP rulemaking actions involving SO 2 that are sent to Headquarters
for review.
Conrad Kieveno of the OIA will be the contact with the Canadian
Embassy. Before a SIP revision is sent to the Office of the Federal
Register for publication, Denise Gerth will contact him at the same time
she contacts the Office of Public Affairs. He in turn will send a cover
letter and copy of the Federal Register notice to the Canadian Embassy.
Normally, press releases do not need to be submitted; however, if one is
planned, please attach it to the communications strategy.
If you have any questions on this, please call me or Denise Gerth.
cc: Conrad Kleveno
Denise Gerth
Sharon Reinders

-------
PN 110-86—12-04—077
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice entitled:
Emissions Trading Policy Statement; General Principles
for Creation, Banking and use of Emission Reduction
Credits (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook.
Please refer to this notice for EPA policy/guidance related to this
subject.

-------
PN 110-86-08-07—076
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator - -
for Air and Radiation
Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
SF 4 ,
t1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
L
omcE o
AI ND RADIAT O’.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
A nuNber of States have asked EPA to approve SIP revisions
granting compliance date extensions for individual VOC sources
in ozone nonattainment areas. The attached Dolicy sets forth
EPA’s position on when approval of such SIP revisions is
appropriate and what the States must demonstrate in order for
EPA to approve them. Regional Offices should review the
requests for SIP revisions for conformance to this policy.
SIP revisions now pending at Headquarters will also need to
be reviewed by the Reqions in light of this policy.
Attachment
cc: Richard H. Plays, OECM
Gerald A. Emison, OAOPS
Alan Eckert, OGC
Air Division Directors, Regions I—X
Regional Counsels, Regions I—X

-------
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
In order to approve a source—specific compliance date
extension, two tests must be met. First, a State must
demonstrate that the extension will not interfere with timely
attainment (attainment by the formally established attainment
date) and maintenance of the ozone standard and, where relevant
“reasonable further progress” (RFP) towards timely attainment. 1/
The attainment date will generally be December 31, 1q82, or the
date established under Section 110 where the State has adequate-
iy responded to a request for SIP revisions under SllO(a)(2)(H),
or December 31, 1987 in ozone extension areas. The demonstra-
tion may be based on a comparison between the margin for
attainment predicted by the demonstration submitted with the
approved ozone SIP 2/ and the increased emissions that would
result under the pronosed compliance date extension. 3/ If
there is an adequate margin to absorb the increased emTssions
(and the extension would not interfere with RFP), then EPA
may conclude that the compliance date extension will not
interfere with the attainment and continued maintenance of
the ozone standard.
1/ The reference to a demonstration of RFP towards timely
attainment is not intended to redefine RFP but only reaffirms
that an RFP analysis is reauired.
2/ For areas where revisions to the Part 1) SIP are required
(such as 1987 extension areas or SIP call areas) and those
revisions have not been fully approved, the State would have
to submit a demonstration the eguivalent of that required
for EPA approval of the ozone SIP. Without an approvable
demonstration EPk cannot determine whether the individual
compliance date extension will interfere with timely attain-
ment and maintenance of the standard, or with RFP. A
de minimus showing would not be acceptable, since in the
aggregate even very small sources would contribute signifi-
cantly to ozone formation.
3/ In making such a comparison it will be necessary to
determine what, if any, portion of the margin has been utilized
by new sources of VOCs that may have located in the area
since the SIP was anproved, as well as by existing VOC sources
that may have already been granted compliance date extensions.

-------
—2—
If the State or EPA believes that there has been a substantial
change in the inventory of VOC sources or total \FOC emissions
since the ozone SIP was approved so that the margin of attain-
ment has channeci significantly, a revised demonstration in
support of the source—specific SIP revision should be submit-
ted. 4/
Second, time extensions also must be consistent with the
requirement that nonattainment area SIPs provide for “imolemen-
tation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable” [ l72(b)(2)1. Expeditiousness
should he demonstrated by determining when the source was
first put on notice of the applicable requirement (e.g.,
adoption of the current regulation by the State) and the tirn
that has elapsed since then. EPA has generally determined
that for most ‘JOC sources this period is less than three
years. 5/ Any source—specific SIP revision for a compliance
date extension within these timeframes may be presumed to be
expeditious. Compliance date extensions for periods longer
than these timeframes, however, should be closely scrutinize’l
to determine whether or not they are truly expeditious. 6/
This should include an examination of the compliance status of
other sources nationally in the same VOC source cateaory
(this examination would be the responsibility of the State),
and the most expeditious means of comoliance available (includ-
ing add on control equipment, process change, or raw material
improvement) irrespective of the method proposed in the SIP
4/ Such a demonstration would he necessary, for example, in
areas originally demonstrating attainment by 1982, hut for
which post—1982 monitoring data are indicating exceedances of
the ozone standard or raising serious questions about the
original prediction of attainment.
5/ For three source categories (can coating onerations,
graphic arts printing and automotive assembly plant paint
shop operations), based on industry experience EPA has
through policy statements concluded that expeditiousness may
be longer than three years.
6/ The same holds true for review of individual compliance
date extensions incorporated in any area—wide ozone SIP
revisions submitted by a State (such as those being submitted
pursuant to an EPA SIP call under Section llO(a)(2)(H)). Any
change in the original deadline for an individual VOC source
incorporated in an area—wide ozone SIP revision must be
demonstrated to be expeditious (as well as not interfere with
timely attainment and maintenance).

-------
—3—
revision. Unless it can be shown that the original timeframe
approved in the SIP did not allow sufficient time for an
economically and technologically feasible compliance plan to
be implemented, a SIP revision for a compliance date extension
beyond the timeframes set forth above should be denied.
In conclusion, both the demonstration of timely attainment
(includinq RFP where relevant) and maintenance and the
expeditiousness tests must be met before a State SIP revision
can be approved.
7 4 ; , /4 E
J.,QØig Pottfir
As ’(stant Adi inistrator
for Air and Radiation
J6 —T 6

-------
I I J..LVLJ, J,JL —
S7
L\ITED STATES E\\IRON\IE\T. L P OTECTIO\ ACE\C’
‘ .SHL\GTU\.DC 20460
5 /2. )
OFflCE OF
- AIR A D gAOl 1 TIO’.
Ms . Nancy Malolev
Commissioner, ‘Department
Environmental Manaoement
Suite 319
311 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, In lana 46204
Dear Ms.
I enjoyed our recent meetinq and I have received your
followup letter of April 28, 1986 requesting clarification of
the Environmental Protection Agency’s policy on use of 30—day
averaging as a compliance method for the Indiana State
Ir plementatjon Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). In this
ccnnect o , you raised the cuest cn cf the use of a statistically_
:ased method such as tne one approved by EPA ir, the Arizona
2 SIP for s e1ters and upheld in Kamp v. Hernaridez , 752 F.2d
1444 9th Car. 1985).
I understand the importance of this issue to the coal
ndustry in your state, and of the concern that the significa c
of coal variability be factored into the establishment of emission
limitations and appropriate compliance methods.
As yo know, the current National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for SO 2 has both short term (i.e. 3—hour and
24—hour averages) as well as annual average components. Because,
under the Clean Air Act, State Implementation Plans (SIPs) must
demonstrate attainment of these short—term standards, EPA has
had a long—standing policy to require emission limitations to be
enforceable on a short—term basis to protect the short—term
NAAQS. In recent years, EPA has not approved SO 2 30—day averaging
as a compliance method, unless accompanied by a short—term so 2
limit established by a reference dispersion modeling analysis.
The Agency currently is in the process of reviewing the
NAAQS for SO 2 , including consideration of a statistical revised
standard. As part of that review, EPA also is reviewing the
feasibility of using alternative, statistically—based demon-
strations related to any such revised 502 standard. Because
I. v change in our policy on methodology would have nationwide

-------
—2—
implications for NAAQS attainment, we do not expect to change
the current position, if at all, prior to our completion of
the NAAQS review.
You specifically have asked for our position on whether
multipoint rollback or other statistical techniques cou ld be
used to justify approval of 30—day averaging. As a general
matter, we require analytical techniques that are technically
and scientifically sound and that are practical and consistently
applied in similar circumstances. Based on my current under—
standinc, t appears that multipoint rollback itself would
not be applicable for the type of situation presented by the
Indiana SIP. You should be aware that EPA approved the
multipoint rollback SIP in Arizona several years ago only
after expending considerable time and effort on the particulars
of eac)’ Arizona smelter. Although in most circumstances EPA
considers the rollback approach to be technically less sound
than approved modeling methods, the Agency finally approved
that aDproach for Arizona as a result of a wide r ange of
factors stemming fror’i the very unusual nature of the smelter
emission problems. As you know, the problems of smelters
have proven particularly difficult, as demonstrated by
Congress’ own special treatment of smelters in section 119
f zhe Ce Air Act.
The Arizona smelters are isolated er.d are characterized
v extrerne variations in emission levels, resulting from tne
7artlcular characteristic of the smelting process, t e chemical
composition of the ores, and other factors. Use of traditional
modeling methods for these sources was complicated by the
oresence of associated fugitive emission sources and ccrnplexor
mountainous terrain. Due to these limitations on the use of
standard mode1 ng techniques, the State turned to the .rizona
:11back approach, which included, for example, collection of
additional monitoring •and emission data, additions to the
ex&stinc monitoring network, study and commitment to a State
fugitive emission control program, 80—90 percent emission
control, and running 3—hour average compliance determined by
continuous emission monitors (CEMs).
My understanding is that the Indiana SIP for SO 2 , in
contrast, is dominated by utility power plants and large
industrial boilers, whose emissions donot vary nearly so
much as smelters and which do not have large associated
fugitive emissions sources or complex terrain. Approved models
already exist and have been used nationally to account for
multiple source interactions and stack height adjustments
(where stack heights greater than GEP must be discounted).
The existing air qualIty modelling methods for establishing
ission limitations have been used successfully in different
state SIPS wn ch ha.’e sources similar to Indiana.

-------
— 3—
At this point, I cannot give you much encouragement on
tryino to use the multipoirit rollback approach or a similar
method for the Indiana SIP. Any attempt to develop a statistical
approach, as demonstrated by the Arizona experience, would
require significant time and resource commitments from both
the state and EPA for activities such as data development
and analvs:s and progr review. However, extensive attempts
in the past to devc-lop ar alter- cj”c. atistica1 approach
to. uti1 tv power plant attainment demonstrations did not
produce an acceptable technique, so success is unlitcely.
The end result of any analysis still must be a Successful
demonstration of compliance with short—term standards r
coal sulfur co- - ceeds th average limit. We pr? r
that de elcpr. - .)f a possible statistical approach not be
attempted on an ad hoc basis because of the significant
nat!or1. . plications and the possible re t •-’ 5’ iD with
the SO 2 standard review. We also are concerned that t} ere
not be further delay in the time when Indiar.a i ll have a
federally approved sip.
The most straightforward way of resolving this issue
W3Ui. be for the state to remove the 30—day averaging method
from tne state SO 2 rule. Any subsec r t ’ eveloped compi ance
. itted as a Source specific SI? revision
er tne alternative compliance method provision cf tne
p cab1e :1 regulation. Short-term SIP limitations
for each source should be consistent with methods contained
.n EPA reference guidelines, using source test methods to
—ieas ce r p:1 nce as specified in 40 CFR Part 60 Method 6.
The EPA t S policy and modeling guidance with regard to the
requirements fDr approvable attainment demonstrations is
contained in its G ideline on Air Quality Models.
As a fiial note, I want to point out a factor which,
although unrelated tothe merits of the methodology questions,
f c: :ern to me and also should be off concsrn to your
state. A new bill to establish acid rain control plans, H.R.
4567, was recently introduced in Congress with 150 co—sponsors.
The Administrator t’s 1 on the bill, opposing its passace,
while arguing a restrained approach to controls, based on the
p:esent t incies in our knowledge of acid precipitation.
One of the principal reasons advanced by the Administrator
for deferring action is that current &vidence suggests that
502 erlissions in the mid es . ar’ stable. Thus, we have
tHe or the required further research without the need for
5 .tiona1 SQ , controls at this time. It would be unfor—
r r.- 1 , ecsuse of methodology changes or other reasons,

-------
—4--
some states were perceived to significantly increase so 2
errtissjons so that overal l so 2 emissions i t
were to begin to trend upward, since su’-h a trend would
s .ipport those in Congress who are pressing for additional
SO 2 controls before the facts are in. I am sure you are
as concernec abo : as I am.
I stand ready to discuss these matters further, or to
as ist you in any way I can to resolve the Indiana so 2 SIP
:ssue. I am sorry that I cannot be encouraging on the
ar:. .c.ilar approach used for Arizona smelters, but I hope
:.. t at least I have clarified EPA’S current policy. Please
i hesitate to call n e if I c ci £ r-; ce.
Sincerely,
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation

-------
PN 110-86-04-11-074
o
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1’,
Pno
11 APR1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Responses to Five VOC Issues Raised by the Regional
Offices and Departme of Justice
FROM: Gerald A. Emi son
Office of Air ua ity Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VT
Air and Toxics Divisions Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Attached are responses to five VOC issues identified by the Regional
Offices and DOJ through the VOC Compliance Workgroup. These five issues
are:
o voc Recordkeeping
o Economic Feasibility for Non CIG Sources
o Type of Compliance Monitoring When Incineration Is Only
Used Sporadically
o Transfer Efficiency
o Test Methods for Assessing VOC Compliance
This is the second group of responses that I have issued and brings
the total number of responses issued by Headquarters to thirteen. (For
more information on the background of the VOC issues, please see my
February 28 memorandum to you with a similar title.) We are working with
the appropriate Headquarters offices to expedite issuance of the remaining
f i VOC issues.
I appreciate your staffs’ efforts in commenting on the various drafts
of these issues and hope that you find them helpful in resolving some of
the issues conc rning VOC enforcement.
Attachment
cc: VOC Compliance Workgroup
Regional Counsel, Regions I—X
NOTE: Attachments not included in the
Policy and Guidance Notebook.

-------
ISSUE:
11 J it Feasible to Request Daily Recordkeeping?” 1
Response:
There are two parts to this question. The first is whether the SIP
in question is properly interpreted to require daily recordkeeping,
making it “legally’ 1 permissible to require daily records for compliance
determination purposes. This paper will not address that issue.
The second part of the daily feasibility question is h i practical
will it be for the sources, financially and administratively, to keep
records on a line—by—line, daily basis, since that is the basis of many
VOC SIP provisions. This paper will first address the technical feasibility
of maintaining these records and then reiterate EPA policy in this regard.
One must look at the various possible situations that can arise to
determine the level of difficulty sources may encounter. These situations
can be broken down into three basic types.
The first situation is those facilities that use only complying
formulations which contain no on-site VOC dilution. These sources, by
definition, are in compliance at all times because each coating used is
in compliance with RACT and SIP requirements. Recordkeeping requirements
for these facilities would be straightforward. They would only have to
maintain records that shcM that they don’t dilute or cut the coatings
before applying them.
The second situation is represented by sources which have installed
abatement equipment (add-on controls). The recordkeeping requirements
for this category should not be n i nor should they be as conplicated as
those required for the more complex plants. Generally, only routine
operational parameters would have to he checked and recorded daily as
described in the following “issue” on recordkeeping requirements. Automatic
recorders and alarms could he used for some, if not all of the important
parameters.
1 The first item deals with daily recordkeeping because it was specifically
addressed in the question asked. However, the reader must be aware
that the time interval required for recorrikeeping is a function of SIP
regul at ions.

-------
2
The last situation will require the most effort to maintain adequate
records. This situation is represented by job shops that use a large
variety of complying and noncomplying coatings or ink formulations to
meet SIP regulations, including “bubble requirements. These facilities
will have the most difficulty meeting a 24—hour recordkeeping requirement.
Part of the difficulty is from the resistance by the sources to change
present recordkeeping practices. For example, some companies tie their
recordkeeping practices to their inventory procedures and take inventory
only on a weekly or monthly basis. Also, other plants often record ink
or coating use by the “job” 2 which may overlap from one 24-hour period
into another. These procedures are generally not acceptable to meet
daily recordkeeping requirements.
In some cases, significant modifications may be required in the
operation of a process that may also require additional labor. However,
these costs should not be taken at face value by compliance authorities
since there may be significant process and emission control benefits to
improved recordkeeping. A shop which keeps better records, daily, by the
job or contemporaneously (real time), should have better cost control
because it knows more about its process, inventory, and emission control.
This would be true even if longer periods of averaging (greater than 24
hours) are allowed. This is especially true if the companies also institute
better methods for determining the quantities of different formulations
used. These methods could include continuously recording flow meters,
totalizers, etc. for determining coating and VOC diluent use. 3
Given the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that there are facilities
which would have significant difficulties with recordkeeping on a daily
basis (i.e., daily VOC emissions cannot be determined, or application of
RACT is not economically or technically feasible on a daily basis). EPA
has established
2 A “job” is usually defined as an order for a single identifiable product
for a single customer. It will require set up time as the proper rolls
or other equipment is installed. Hence the machine or line is down
both before and after completion of a job.
3 In addition, some recordkeeping problems can be alleviated if some type
of automated bookkeeping is used by the source i.e., computerized
records for coating and VOC use, process variables, and emission control
parameters. This could greatly simplify the auditing of the process
line coating usage and inventories, especially if the source has adequate
monitoring and process control devices.

-------
3
a policy addressing longer averaging times. Sources which desire a
longer period must comply with the January 20, 1984 memorandum fróm John
O’Connor entitled, “Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission
Limits”. This memorandum sets forth specific requirements for approval
of averaging times greater than 24 hours. Recordkeeping requirements are
directly related to the compliance time interval i.e., in order for
compliance authorities to make proper compliance determinations, sources
must maintain records on the same basis as is required for these (compliance)
determinations. Briefly the requirements of the memorandum are:
1. Daily VOC emissions cannot be determined
or application of RACT is not economically
or technically feasible on a daily basis.
2. Achieve real emission reductions consistent
with RACT control levels.
3. Have an averaging time not to exceed thirty
days.
4. Demonstrate that the new standards will not
jeopardize attainment or the reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan for the area.
5. Have an approved SIP with no violations of
ambient standards or a revised SIP demonstrating
ambient standards attainment and maintenance of
REP.
In conclusion, daily recordkeeping SIP requirements are appropriate
except under conditions as articulated in John O’Connor’s January 20,
1984, memorandum.
In addition, the requirement to maintain daily records needed to
make emission compliance determinations, in and of itself, may not require
a source to compute its emission on a daily basis. In such a case, where
there is no emission computation requirement, the source must only maintain
the records needed to make a compliance determination for the time interval
set forth in the SIP. The relationships of reporting requirements to
compliance verifications are addressed in the next two issues of this
discussion.

-------
L I
ISSUE:
“What Type of Recordkeeping Should be Required?”
Response:
Recordkeeping requirements should be tailored to the source and to
the applicable SIP emission limits or other Federal requirements. For
this reason, it is not possible to establish a universally applicable
policy. However, the following guidance should prove helpful in formulating
recordkeeping requirements for particular sources.
Ideally (and currently in some SIPS) records should be kept for each
line 4 on a contemporaneous basis. However, due to a mixture of different
control methods, this may be difficult. Also SIPS generally require
compliance on a line and specific time basis, and therefore, this would
govern h records should be kept. 5
Recordkeeping can generally be broken into two categories. The
first category concerns the formulation of coatings, inks, adhesives,
etc., and the second is information on the add-on control devices.
Formulations data which are needed are fairly straightforward and include
the foll ing:
1. Properties of coatings, inks, etc., “as supplied”
by coating manufacturing plants on a line-by—line
basis. These properties are listed in EPA—450/3—84-019,
“Procedures for Certifying Quantity of Volatile
Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink, and other
Coati ngs”.
2. Properties of coatings, inks, etc., “as applied”
by manufacturing plants on a line—by—line basis.
These properties are also listed in EPA-450/3-84—0l9.
4 The definition of a (production) line may vary depending on applicable
regulations. NSPS regulations are fairly specific. Some cases may
also be defined in the SIP which could also require RACT compliance on
a coating by coating basis.
5 This basis may be different due to individual SIP provisions or where
the source has received EPA approval for different recordkeeping requirements
consistent with the previously discussed January 20, 1984 John O’Connor
memo. In addition, cross line averaging is allowed for can coaters
where the SIP does not specifically prohibit such averaging, as stated
in the December 8, 1980 Federal Register reference in the above John
O’Connor memo.

-------
5
3. Quantity of ink, coatings, etc., used. This information is
generally needed on a line-by-line basis.
4. Type and quantity of dilution solvents used, generally needed on
a line—by—line and coating by coating basis.
5. Transfer efficiencies of coating processes if different from
those cited in regulations. Credit for higher transfer efficiency
may need to be documented and approved by EPA in some cases.
This is dependent on the CTG/NSPS category and the specific SIP
requirements. More specific guidance in this area is given in
the responses to the issues on transfer efficiency.
For add—on controls at least the following information 6 should be
kept (checked and recorded daily) in order to assure continuous compliance:
1. Operational parameters on the capture system such as fan power
use, duct flow, duct pressure etc.
2. Operational parameters on the control system. These will vary
depending on the specific type and design of the device. The
use of appoved continuous emission monitoring (CEM), which is
properly maintained and calibrated, may negate the need for some
of the following information:
a. For carbon adsorbers: Bed temperature, bed vacuum pressure,
pressure at the vacuum pump, accumulated time of operation,
etc.
h. For refrigeration systems: Compressor discharge and suction
pressures, condenser temperature, defrost brine temperature,
etc.
c. For incinerator systems, flame temperature
and accumulated times of operation of
incinerator and respective process lines.
This information is general in nature. The specific operating parameters
will vary for each type of device and manufacturer. Specific sources
of information which will be of use in determining important operating
parameters include the following:
(a) “Survey of Mechanical Reliability of Vapor
Control Systems for Bulk Gasoline Terminals”,
EPA 340/1-85-0017
(b) The Background Information Documents on the
various VOC NSPS source categories.
(c) The control equipment manufacturer’s
recommendations.

-------
6
3. Data used to determine recovery rates of carbon adsorbers and
refrigeration systems must be recorded on a daily basis if
continuous recordings are not available. This will allow some
recoveçy rates to be compared against VOC usage on the applicable
lines.’ Therefore, records of VOC usage should be maintained
even where only add-on controls exist, especially if the source
uses a mix of compliance methods.
4. If solvents are not reused or incinerated, ultimate disposal
records should he kept.
Operational parameters should be checked by a source on a daily
basis in order to assure proper operations. The substitution of continuous
recordings, including emergency alarms for certain parameters, can be
allowed for certain daily checks. Stack (performance) tests required
after a system goes on line, must also be conducted if there are serious
operational problems with the source, poor solvent recovery, or important
changes in the process or control methods. In addition, since NSPS
standards generally identify compliance and recordkeeping requirements,
the compliance authority should review these standards when setting
recordkeeping requirements for similar facilities regulated under SIP/RACT
standards.
7 The compliance reviewer must also consider the hold-over (heel) of VOC
in the carbon bed when making a review. This hold-over of VOC from one
day into the next may give the appearance of excessively high recovery
one day and usually l the next. This aberration, in and of itself,
should not be considered a non-compliance situation.

-------
7
ISSUE:
“How Can or Should Recordkeeping be Verified When EPA Cannot
Independently Determine Compliance?”
Response:
This response provides guidance relative to verifying compliance of
VOC sources. EPA and the States have at least six basic methods for
verifying compliance of such sources. These are:
1. Walk through plant.
2. Checking records to make sure the company is complying using the
proper formulation mix. This basically consists of auditing
records and emission requirements. 8
3. Checking operation and maintenance records as well as VOC recovery
of add-on control systems.
4. Checking the operating permits, fire—safety inspections, and/or
insurance company premium! policies to assure low solvent coatings
are used.
5. Testing emissions (stack tests).
6. Verifying (testing) formulations “as supplied” and “as applied”
as defined in EPA—450/3-84-019.
Generally, the first method (walk through plant) is not acceptable
by itself. As a result, inspections should include a combination of the
above methods, especially methods 1, 2, 3 and 6 listed above. Item 2,
confirmation of recordkeeping, is required to give companies the incentive
to keep accurate records and submit accurate reports to compliance agencies.
The confirmation of records should not be too difficult a problem for
small shops because they either do not use a large number of formulations,
use only complying coatings with little or no VOC diluents, or use only
add-on controls.
8 This also includes those cases where records are kept on an item by
item basis such as can coating where a “standard” coating use per item
is used. However it is recommended that the actual coating used in a
production run be checked every so often against the “standard”.
The source may use “prorating of production” if a production
run carries from one day into the next in order to compute
emissions as regulations allow. This only applies if
production is constant, or known for the required (SIP) time
interval

-------
8
This relatively easy confirmation sometimes is not the case with larger
sources. In some cases where the company has a number of lines using a
large number of complying and noncomplying formulations, verification of
compliance becomes a significant accounting effort. This is especially
true if the situation is further complicated y add-on controls for
some lines. However, compliance agencies must still check these sources.
If lines or a group of lines can be separated out for auditing this can
simplify the process so that only part of a plant need he audited.
In addition, where line-by-line auditing is especially difficult, an
audit on a plant—wide basis may be a practical approach even where there
is no plant—wide “bubble.” Although this does not result in per line
compliance, it can give a reasonable indication, a screening, whether a
facility is even close to compliance. However, for compliance purposes,
this overall plant-wide approach should not replace a line—by—line evaluation
where such compliance is required by the SIP.
Therefore, some combination of the aforementioned methods may be
required in assuring compliance of various sources. The auditing
of process records and testing of formulations may be the only way to
verify compliance in some cases, and the agency will have to initiate
these procedures if it wants to determine compliance of these sources
despite the significant additional resource demands required.
Much of the above agency resource demands may he minimized, or at
least better focused, by requiring improved reporting from the source.
Besides giving the compliance authorities some idea of what emissions are
being emitted from a source, it would also require the source to make the
computations to determine its emission rate. This in turn would give
some assurance that the source is maintaining some type of records which
can be used by EPA and State agencies in verifying compliance. Therefore,
as a minimum, quarterly reporting of emission exceedances is strongly
recommended wherever State regulations allow.
rald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
cit. . ./f
Date Signed

-------
9
Issue:
What criteria should he used to determine economic
feasibility for non-CTG VOC sources? For CTG sources where
recommended RACT is technically infeasible?
Response:
EPA’s definition of VOC RACT for ozone plans is the
lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable
of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility. This is explained in greater depth in the
September 17, 1979 supplement to the general preamble on the
criteria for approval of Part D SIP revisions (44 FR 53761).
Where EPA cannot rely on presumptive norms, RACT for a parti-
cular source is determined on a case—by-case basis considering
the technological and economic circumstances of the individual
source. Hence, whether or not a source is addressed by a
CTG, no universally applicable decision rule can supplant
case-by—case judgment on what constitutes RACT.
In evaluating economic feasibility for RACT, the Agency
gives significant weight to cost—effectiveness. However, no
specific cost effectiveness threshold exists to determine
RACT. Numerous other factors (i.e., age of facility, quantity
of emissions, nature of emissions, severity of existing air
quality problem, extent of controls present, comparability
to standard industry practice in related industries, cross
media impacts, economic impacts, etc.) must be considered in
establishing RACT. It is conceivable, given differing local
circumstances, that a control option could be reasonably
available in one location and unreasonable in another.
1—i/-a 6
Date Signed
Planning and Standards

-------
10
Issue:
Where incineration is only used sporadically when high—solvent
coatings are used, what type of compliance monitoring is required?
Is efficiency of the incinerator impacted by sporadic use?
Response:
The temperature of the incinerator is of interest only during
periods when the production process is operating. As a result,
the guidance below is appropriate only when, for example, a
printing press is actually printing.
The following records are essential for determining
compliance.
o The periods of time when the process is operating.
O Periods of time when the average gas temperture of the
incinerator is colder than 28°C (50°F) below the average
temperature during the most recent successful performance
test.
o If a catalytic incinerator is used, all periods when the
average gas temperature of the device upstream of the
catalyst bed is colder than 28°C (50°F) below the gas
temperature during the most recent successful performance
test.
° All periods when the average gas temperature across the
catalyst bed is less than 80 percent of the temperature
differential during the most recent successful perfor-
mance test.
Sporadic operation of the incinerator should not affect its
VOC destruction efficiency if the temperatures are raised to the
operating levels used during the most recent successful perfor-
mance test before the solvent-borne inks, paints, etc., are
introduced to the line.
If a thermal incinerator has a brick-lined combustion chamber,
it may not be practical to shut the incinerator down during
periods when it is not needed because of the risk of spalling the
brick lining if the temperature falls below about 500°C. The
need to remain above about 500°C would minimize the potential
fuel savings that would otherwise accrue from intermittent
operation.

-------
11
Is sue:
Should a source be required to retrofit thermocouple wells
on an incinerator to permit temperature monitoring?
Response:
Generally, yes. The object, of course, is to verify
continuous operation under conditions consistent with those
under which the incinerator successfully passed the performance
test. The optimum location for a retrofit therniowell(s) may
be different from the guidance above but shall be located so
as to insure that it (they) reflect the operation of the
incinerator.
era1d A. m son, Director
Office of Air Ouality Planning and Standards
Date Signed

-------
12
Is sue:
What is transfer efficiency?
Response:
Transfer efficiency is a measure of paint waste.
Specifically, it is the ratio of the amount of coating solids
deposited on the coated part to the total amount of coating
solids used. Transfer efficiency (TE) is an important factor
in determining emissions from spray coating operations. When
the TE of a spray coating operation increases, the amount of
coating required to coat a part decreases, hence, less paint
and VOC exits the spray gun and emissions decrease.
Is sue:
What baseline TE should be used?
Response:
Baseline TEs have been established for use with the emission
limits recommended in three control techniques guidelines (CTG):
automobile and light-duty truck (guide coat and topcoat), large
appliances, and metal furniture. The baseline TE for automobile
and light-duty truck guidecoat and topcoat is 30 percent. This
is the value measured at the two General Motors assembly plants
in California that used the waterborne coatings on which the
recommended emission limits were based. (Attachment 1).
The baseline TE for large appliance and metal furniture is
60 percent. This value was established based on a determination
that hand-held electrostatic guns would achieve a TE of 60
percent in these industries and are available at reasonable
cost. (Attachment 2).
Baseline TEs were also incorporated directly into the
emission limits when the new source performance standards
(NSPS) for these three industries were prepared about three
years after the CTGs were written. These values are 39 percent
for automobile guide coat, 37 percent for automobile topcoat,
and 60 percent for large appliances and metal furniture. The
baseline figures for the automobile industry are based on the
actual TE measured at the General Motors assembly plant in
Oklahoma City. This was a new facility that used the same

-------
13
waterborne coatings that s rved as the basis for both the NSPS
limits and RACT for guide coat and topcoat.
Issue:
How is credit to be calculated?
Response:
The effect of TE improvements is most easily taken into
account by expressing the emission limit and actual emissions
in terms of “mass of VOC per volume of solids applied (deposited
on the substrate).” Calculations using the units of “mass of
VOC per volume of coating less water” cannot correctly account
for changes in transfer efficiency.
Since the emission limits adopted in most state
implementation plans (SIPs) are in these last terms (“mass of
VOC per volume of coating less water”) that do not permit
correction for changes in TE, clearly something must be done to
permit the SIPs to provide TE credit. This can be done in
either of two ways; with source specific SIP revisions or by
adopting “equivalent” emission limits expressed as “mass of VOC
per gallon of solids applied” as Michigan and Delaware have.
Attachment 3 presents a number for “mass of VOC per gallon of
solids applied” which is equivalent to the units used in the
CTGs (mass of VOC per volume of coating less water) at the appro-
priate baseline transfer efficiency for the three industries.
Actual emissions in terms of “mass of VOC per gallon of
solids applied” can also be calculated using the VOC Data
Sheets.1 First, determine the VOC content of the coating used
in units of “mass of VOC per volume of coating solids (as
applied)” then divide this result by the transfer efficiency.
An example is provided in Attachment 4.
Determining the actual transfer efficiency of a coating
line is very difficult. Several methods have been used by
industry, but there is yet no widely accepted test procedure.
Transfer efficiency is affected by numerous factors, such as
the coating being sprayed, spray gun flow or pressure, and
workpiece size and shape. These can change from job-to-job or
day-to-day. In order to deal with the lack of test procedure,
the NSPS for automobiles and light—duty trucks, large appliances,

-------
14
and metal furniture provide tables of transfer efficiency
values which reflect the type of spray equipment in use. These
values are part of the standard, hence may be used for NSPS
compliance calculations (Attachment 5).
We have recently learned that several new automobile
topcoat lines are achieving only 1/3 to 1/2 of the TE predicted
using the tables in the automobile coating NSPS. The severity
of this ‘ 1 shortfall” from the table values appears to he very
facility specific, and some automobile topcoat lines may achieve
actual efficiencies much closer to the table values.
Since actual automobile topcoat TE sometimes falls far short of
table TE, table values cannot be relied on to give an accurate
indication of actual emissions or whether real emission reduc-
tions consistent with SIP commitments are achieved. Consequently,
unless the SIP specifically incorporates the NSPS table values for
transfer efficiency, actual measured values should be used to
determine compliance with SIP requirements. Similarly, projected
actual TE values should be used to estimate emissions which will
result from new or modified facilities.
Issue:
Can credit for improved transfer efficiency be obtained by
coaters in other source categories?
Response:
This question is frequently asked by persons concerned with
the industry EPA has referred to as “miscellaneous metal coaters.”
The answer is generally yes, although no baseline level was
established for this industrial category because of its broad
range of coated products. Since the configuration of the
substrate can be the dominant variable in determining TE,
previous guidance provided by EPA required that a case-hy-case
investigation be conducted to determine the unique baseline for
that specific application. This guidance is provided in
Attachment 6.
This guidance has proven cumbersome and frustrating to some
sources that have installed modern, efficient spray application
equipment. This is particularly true in those industries that,
because of concerns over trade secrets, are unable to gain
1 Procedure for Certifying Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds
Emitted by paint, Ink, and Other Coatings, EPA—450/3-84-019,
December 1984.

-------
15
insight into the TE experience of its competitors. To overcome
this problem, we recommend States use a default baseline TE of
60 percent for most miscellaneous metal spray coaters. This
value is consistent with that established for metal furniture
and large applicance coaters.
This baseline value should be used only for spray coating
operations, it should not be used to give TE credit to dip or
flow coaters. Also, it would be inappropriate to use this
baseline value for spray coating of interior surfaces such as
steel pails and drums, tanks, and tank cars that may have
inherently high TE. Use of 60 percent as a baseline could result
in windfall or paper credits (i.e., no real emission r duction
at these operations).
Coaters who believe the baseline TE for their industry
should be less than 60 percent could still try to establish a
source specific industry baseline using the guidance previously
issued. The intent to allow miscellaneous metal coaters to
take credit for TE improvements must be documented by the
State’s adopting the general baseline or source specific baseline
into the SIP.
era d A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Date Signed

-------
16
Issue :
What are the appropriate test methods for assessing VOC
compliance? Where are the gaps, if any, between the need in
various contexts for measuring VOC compliance and actual State
SIP test methods or EPA promulgated test methods?
Response :
The September 14, 1984, memorandum entitled, “Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) Test Methods or Procedures for Source
Categories in Groups I, II, and III Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTGs) ” gives an updated list of recommended source
test methods applicable to CTGs (see Attachment I). Some SIPS
may list different methods endorsed by others such as the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or others.
Some of these State requirements were published before EPA
developed the methods presented in the attachment. When a SIP
has approved a test method, EPA will abide by that method.
Changes to these methods can only be made by a SIP revision.
However, when the approved test method is different from the
indicated EPA test method, we urge the States to modify their
regulations to be consistent with the NSPS test methods.
The September 14, 1984, memorandum lists Method 24A for use
with Graphic Arts CTGs. Method 24A was developed only for the
publication rotogravure sector of the graphic arts industry.
Method 24 shall be used for analysis of inks for flexography
and rotogravure package printing.
When coatings are to be tested for VOC content, it is
helpful if the results are reported on the VOC data sheet
described in the document, “Procedures for Certifying Quantity
of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other
Coatings,” EPA—450/3—84—019, December 1984. Use of the VOC
data sheet and its implementing instructions will ensure that
VOC contents of coatings are analyzed and reported on a consis-
tent basis.
Issue :
Can Reference Method 18 (gas chromatography/flame ionization
detector) be substituted for Reference Method 25?
Response :
Yes, but only in limited situations where the solvent or
VOC is a single compound or the identities of the components are
known. Results of this method would be suspect if the gas

-------
17
stream being tested contained a mixture of unknown orgartics.
Two examples of the latter would be (a) an oven exhaust where
a blend of “proprietary” (hence, unknown) solvents are evapor-
ated from a coating, or (b) the exhaust stream of a combustion
device that is or is suspected to he operating inefficiently.
It should be noted that Reference Method 25A, 25B, or 25C
could also be substituted for Reference Method 25, and in some
situations may be more desirable. Additional guidance on the
appropriateness of a particular method may be obtained from
George Walsh, Chiet, Emissions Measurement Branch, ESED (MD—13,
RTP, C 27711).
Issue :
Is the variability of Reference Method 24, when used to
analyze waterborne coatings, acceptable?
Response :
Yes. Certainly variability in a Reference Method is
undesirable and we would prefer a more reproducible method.
The variability in the analysis is the result of calculating
the VOC as the difference between two large and independently
measured values, the weight of total volatiles (water and VOC)
and the weight of water. To overcome this inherent imprecision,
one would have to either conduct a large number of duplicate
tests in order to calculate a statistically valid average VOC
content or measure VOC by an independent method. In 1980, the
EPA proposed in the Federal Register another version of Reference
Method 24 with art additional step, art independent measurement.
All who commented on the Federal Register proposal rejected the
alternative version because the additional step would be too
costly.
Reference Method 24, consequently, remains the best
enforcement tool available for determining the VOC content of
coatings. The inherent imprecision of determining the VOC
content of waterborne coatings for enforcement purposes is
accommodated by adjusting the analytical results based on confi-
dence limits calculated from the precision statement established
for RM 24’s constituent ASTM methods. This has a disadvantage.
Some waterborne coatings test at high VOC values that may be
effectively immune from citations when corrected by use of the
precision adjustment. One should remember, however, that any
waterborne coating provides a large emission reduction over
almost any solvent—borne coating. To assure a clear understand-
ing of the precision adjustment, a more detailed explanation
was given in a February 14, 1986, memorandum from Jack Farmer
to Ed Reich (see Attachment II).

-------
18
Issue :
Can a Reference Method be developed for measuring the
volume of solids in surface coatings?
Response :
Method 24 does not specify a procedure for experimentally
determining the volume fraction of solids in a surface coating.
When the method was originally proposed on October 5, 1979,
it did include a procedure for experimentally determining the
volume fraction of solids — the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) D2697—73, Standard Method of Test for
Volume Nonvolatile Matter in Clear or Pigmented Coatings.
During the comment period, we received a very large number of
comments concerning potential problems in the application of
this procedure. As a result, it was deleted from Method 24
before its promulgation on October 3, 1980.
Note in Attachment III, the memorandum “Method for
Measuring the Volume of Solids in Surface Coatings” dated
.January 24, 1986, from J. Farmer.
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Ouality Planning and Standards
Date Signed

-------
rl
US 4 .
.‘ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
R 1t’
March 28, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Block Averages in Im leme ti ,, S02 NAAQS
FROM: Gerald A. Emiso ‘ i
Office of Air u ity P anning and Standards (MD-1O)
TO: Director, Air Divisions, Regions I-X
As you know, the past Agency policy has been to use block averages
in implementing the 3—hour and 24-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The question has
arisen whether block .averages are indeed the proper interpretation of the
NAAQS. We have investigated this issue, and concluded that block averages
are the proper interpretation. Thus, we will continue to use block
averages in actions implementing the 3—hour and 24—hour S02 NAAQS. This
statement of interpretation is for the purpose of providing needed guidance
for current and future implementation decisions; it is not intended to
initiate a reexamination of already approved Implementation plans. In
addition, States will continue to be permitted to develop requirements
that are more stringent than Federal requirements, as provided by
section 116 of the Act.
If this issue arises in any implementation decisions, e.g., SIP
revisions, redesignations, etc., please contact Torn Helms at FTS 529-5526
for assistance. Tom and his staff, along with OGC, are avail able to
assist you in responding to comments or preparing support documents on
this issue.
cc: R. C iipbell
B. Steigerwald
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X

-------
Cn f c2e,vie’ . L

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 111E
vC’L ME 2,
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 111E
* PN111E—86—09—11—004
DELEGATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) AND NATIONAL
EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) AUTHoRITY TO
STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES

-------
ri
(_
, ç,D Sr 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Plann:ig and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
i p
C
11 SEP 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Delegation of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Authority to State/Local ci s
FROM: Jack R. Farmer, Direct
Emission Standards and Eng eering Division (MD-13)
TO: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
This guidance is In response to your memorandum requesting direction
on which of the Administrator’s discretionary authorities under 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61 can be delegated to State and local agencies (hereafter
referred to as “States”). As you pointed out, we issued delegation
guidance on NSPS on Feburary 24, 1983 and on NESHAP on December 17, 1984
(both memos attached). The subparts about which you asked are those that
have been promulgated since those two previous memoranda. In addition,
we are Including guidance on the revised Part 61 General Provisions that
were published on November 7, 1985, and on five standards that have been
promulgated since we received your request (three arsenic NESHAP and
revisions to kraft pulp mill NSPS and asphalt concrete NSPS).
We are unable to provide guidance on NESHAP Subparts B, H, I, and K,
since we do not have responsibility for radionuclides and radon—222. Please
direct any questions to Sheldon Meyers, Director, Office of Radiation
Programs (ANR—458c), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
The authorities that may not be delegated to the States are listed
below. All other authorities may be delegated. The criteria for determining
which of the authorities can be delegated to States has not changed since
our previous guidance and so are not reiterated here. If you have any
questions about this guidance, please refer to the attached memos or
contact John Crenshaw, FTS 629—5571.

-------
2
Authorities
Which May Not be
NSPS Subpart Delegated to States
VV -- SOCMI Equipnent Leaks 60.482—1(c)(2)
60.484
WW -— Beverage Can Coating 60.496(a)(1)
60.493(b) (2) (1) (A)
GGG -- Petroleum Refinery Equipment 60.592(c)
Leaks
JJJ -- Petroleum Dry Cleaning 60.623
No restrictions in delegation
of the following NSPS subparts :
I (revised 1/24/86)
N (revised 1/2/86)
Na
AM
BB (revised 5/20/86)
LL
RR
xx
F FF
HHH
L LL
000
p pp

-------
3
Authorities
Which May Not be
NESHAP Subpart Delegated to States
A —— General Provisions 61.04(b)
61.12(d)(1)
61.13(h) (1) (ii)
J —— Benzene Equipment Leaks 61.112(c)
N —— Arsenic, Glass Manufacturing 61.164(a)(2)
61.164(a) (3)
0 —— Arsenic, Low Arsenic Feedstock 61.172(b)(2)(il)(B)
Copper Smelters 61.172(b)(2)(ii)(C)
61.174(a) (2)
61.174(a) (3)
P —— Arsenic, High Arsenic Feedstock No restrictions
Copper Smelters
V —— Equipi ent Leaks 61.242—1(c)(2)
6 1.244
Your suggestion to provide delegation guidance along with each final
rule is a good one. In the future, we will add a paragraph entitled
“Delegation of Authority” to each NSPS and NESHAP regulation. That paragraph
will indicate any authorities that may not be delegated to States or local
agencies.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hestitate to contact
me.
2 Attachments
cc: Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions I-VIII,X
Rich Biondi , SSCD (EN-341)
Ron Campbell, OAQPS (MD—b)
Gerald Emison, OAQPS (MD-b)
Ed Reich, SSCD (EN—341)
Fred Renner, OAQPS (MD-b)
Charlie Carter, OGC (LE—132A)
Earl Salo, OGC (LE-b32A)
B.J. Steigerwald, OAQPS (MD-b)
Darryl Tyler, OAQPS/CPDD (MD-15)
George Walsh, OAQPS/ESED (MD—13)

-------
C

MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
February 24, 1983
SUBJECT: Delegation of New Source Performance
FROM:
TO:
Jack R. Farmer, Acting Dire
Emission Standards. and Enginee
Allyn P4. Davis, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region VI
Your November 23, 1982, memorandum to Mr. Don R. Goodwin (copy
attached) requested guidance or. which of the Administrator’s discretiona
authorities under 40 CFR Part 60 can be delegated to the States You
identified 57 specific paragraphs which contain provisions that require
the Administrator’s approval. We have developed guidance on the authori-
ties you identified plus several other authorities not specifically
mentioned in your request.
Our guidance permits delegation to a State of all the Administrator’s
authorities under Part 60 except for any which require rulemaking in the
Federal Register to implement or where Federal overview is the only way
to ensure national consistency in the application of standards. The divi—
sior. of State/EPA authority should be based on the principle of respecting
the technical judgment of the State with EPA’s role being primarily one
of monitoring and evaluating overall program performance and providing
assistance when necessary. Implementation decisions generally should be
rnade by the State, while the Agency should make only those decisions that
have the potential to alter the meaning of the standard or result in
divergent application in different areas.
The authorities that should not be delegated to the States are
listed below. All other authorities may be delegated. Of course, the
decision of whether or not to delegate authority under any particular
section rests with the Regional Office based on an assessment of the
S.tate’s intentions and its legal and programmatic capability to implement
the program. This guidance establishes those sections which from a legal
and policy perspective are able to be delegated.
thority to States
g Division (MD-13)

-------
2
The decision-rna ing authority that this guidan:e allows to be delegated
to the States pertains to minor modifications to testing and monitoring
methods. These auth rizations appear in the regulations where the potential
for advancements in test procedures, equipment, reagents, or analytical
procedures was anticipated. The regulations, consequently, were structured
to allow changes in sampling and measurement technology to be incorporated
in an efficient and reasonable manner. The decision to make a minor change
can generally be made by competent testing and laboratory personnel.
Approval by an enforcement agency is needed to confirm that the change is
minor in nature and provide a mechanism to prevent inexperienced testing
and laboratory personnel from inadvertently making major changes to the
method. Subsequent approval by the Administrator is not needed, because
the minor changes do not affect the precision or accuracy of the method
and, therefore, are not o national significance. The delegation, however,
should require adequate documentation of any changes to testing or monitoring
methods so that periodic auditing by EPA can confirm that this discretionary
authority is not being abused.
Authorities Which May Not Be Deleaated to States Under Section 111
1. Paragraph 60.8(b)(2) and 60.8(b)(3) . In order to ensure uniformity
d technical quality in the test methods used for enforcement of national
ndards, the Agency will retain the authority to approve alternative and
uivalent methods which effectively replace a reference method. This
restriction on delegation does not apply to 60.8(b)(l), which allows for
approval of minor modifications to reference methods on a case-by—case basis.
This authority allows, for example, a field engineer co approve deviations
to methods that are necessary because of site-specific problems or
circumstances. Requests for approval should be submitted to the Director,
Emission Standards and Engineering Division. A technical review will be
performed and any approved methods or changes to methods will be proposed
and subsequently promulgated in the Federal Register . At such time, the
alternative or equivalent methods become a part of 40 CFR Part 60 and
are available for general use.
Some subparts include general references to the authority in 60.8(b)
to approve alternative or equivalent standards. Examples include, but
are not necessarily limited to, paragraphs 60.11(b), 60.274(d), 60.396(a)(l),
60.396(a)(2), and 393(c)(l)(i). These references are reminders of the
provisions of paragraph 60.8 and ar not separate authorities which can
be delegated.
2. General Provisions 60.11(e) . The granting of an alternative
opacity stanoara reqwires a site-specfic opacity limit to be adopted under
CFR Part 60. The Administrator may not delegate the authority for
1 emaki ng.

-------
3
3. Sub rt 5, 60.195(b) . Development of alternative compliance
testing schedules for primary aluminum plants is done by adopting site-
specific amend ients to Subpart S. This authority must be retained by the
Administrator. -
4. Subpart Da, 6 0.45a . Conn ercial demonstration permits allow an
alternative emission stanaard for a limited number of utility steam
generators. Delegation to the States is expressly prohibited in the
subpart.
5. Subpart GG, 60.332(a)(3) and 60.335(a)(ii) . These sections
pertain to approval of customized factors (fuel. nitrogen content and
ambient air conditions, respectively) for use by gas turbine manufacturers
in assembly—line compliance testina. Since each approval potentially
could affect emissions from equipment installed in a number of States,
the decision—making must be maintained at the Federal level to ensure
national consistency. Notices of approval must be published in the
Federal Register .
6. Equivalency Determinations, Section 111(h)(3) of Clean Mr Act .
Aoprovai of alternatives to any aesign, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard [ e.g., 6O.114(a) and 60.302(d) (3)) is accomplished
through the rulemaking process and is adopted as a change to the individual
subpart. This authority may not be delegated to the States.
7. Innnovative Technology Waivers, Section 111(j) of the Clean Air
Act. Innovative technology waivers must be aooptec as s te—specific —
i ndrnents to the individual subpart. The authority to grant waivers may
not be delegated. Any applications or questions pertaining to such
waivers should be sent to the Director, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division. [ ote that responsibility for 111(j) has been transferred
from the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) to the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division ESED).J States may be delegated the
authority to enforce waiver provisions if the State has been delegated
the authority to enforce NSPS.
8. Aoplicability Det rminations . The majority of aeplicability
determinations are expecte to be routine in that there wou.ld be an
established precedent to follow. Delegations should be conditioned to
ensure that all interpretations of 40 CFR Part 60 (including Section 60.5)
are consistent with these made by the EPA in .the past. A compendium of
all historical decisions is prepared by SSCD and distributed to the
Regional Offices annually with updates made ouarterly. These summaries
should be sent routinely to each State or local agency that has been

-------
4
I
elegated NSPS ai thority al ong with an explanation that these decisions
epresent NSPS p licy. Any situations not clearly governed by precedent
should be referred to the Regional Office for decision. As in the past,
requests for applicability decisions should be forwarded to the Director,
Stationary Source Compliance Division.
Attachment
cc: Air Waste and Management Division Directors,
,Regions I—V and VII—X
VR. Campbell (MD—b)
C. Elkins (ANR—443)
S. Meyers CANR—443)
E. Reich (EN-341)
F. Renner (MD-b)
E. Salo (A-133)
R. Shiaehara (MD—19)
B. Steigerwald (MD-la)
G. Walsh (MD-13)

-------
sr 4 .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PRO ’
DEC 17 1984
? 1EMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Delegation of NEShAP Au
FROM: Jack R. Farmer, Dire or
Emission Standards ar
TO: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air r anagement Division, Region IX
This is in response to your memorandum requesting guidance on which
of the Administrator’s discretionary authorities under 40 CFR Part 61
can be crelegated to State and local agencies (hereafter referred to as
“States”). You identified 121 specific paragraphs which contain provisions
that require the Administrator’s approval.
Our guidance permits delegation to a State of all the Administrator’s
authorities under Part 61, except for any which require rulemaking in the
Federal Register to implement, or where Federal overview is the only way
to ensure national consistency in the application of standards. The division
of State/EPA authority should be based on the principle of respecting the
technical judgment of the State with EPA’s role being primarily one of
monitoring and evaluating overall program performance and providing assistance
when necessary. Implementation decisions generally should be made by the State,
while the Agency should make only those decisions that have the potential to
alter the meaning of the standaro or result in divergent application in
different areas.
This guidance permits the delegation of discretionary authority in the
Asbestos standard pertaining to substitutions for certain control requirements
[ 61.153(a)(4), 61.153(b)(3), 61.154(b)(1), 61.l.56(b)(3), 61.156(c)(2)]. These
authorities were included in the regulation where the need for flexibility
in determining control requirements was anticipated, recognizing that these
decisions are most efficiently and reasonably made by tne implementing agency.
These decisions may be made outside the authority of Section 112(e) and do
not necessarily require notice and opportunity for public comment. Approval
by the Administrator is not required because the decisions are not of
national significance. The delegation, however, should require adequate
documentation of any decisions made under these paragraphs so that periodic
auditing oy EPA can confirm these discretionary authorities are not being
abused.
1 Agencies

-------
2
The guidance also permits delegation of authority to approve minor
modifications to testing and monitoring methods. Minor modifications pertain
to contingencies that arise in the field and to authorizations that appear
in the regulations where the potential for advancements in test procedures,
equipment, reagents, or analytical procedures was anticipated. The regulations,
consequently, were structured to allow changes in sampling and measurement
technology to be incorporated in an efficient and reasonable manner. The
decision to make a minor change can generally be made by competent testing
and laboratory personnel. Approval by an enforcement agency is needed to
confirm that the change is minor in nature and provide a mechanism to prevent
inexperienced testing and laboratory personnel from inoavertently making
major changes to the method. Subsequent approval by the Administrator is
not needed, because the minor changes do not affect the precision or accuracy
of the methoo and, therefore, are not of national significance. The delegation,
however, should require adequate documentation of any changes to testing or
monitoring methods so that periodic auditing by EPA can confirm that this
discretionary authority is not being aoused.
Part 61 stipulates that if reasonable grounds exist to dispute the
results obtained by an equivalent or alternative source test method, the use
of the reference method may be required, and the results of the reference
method prevail [ 61.67(g), 61.70(c), 61.14(c)]. This authority may be
delegated since the implementing agency is in the best position to make
judgments about the reasonableness of test results obtained by alternative
methods on a specific source. However, as specified in the guidance
below, the approval or withdrawal of an equivalent or alternative test
method is done by rulemaking and cannot be delegated.
Paragraphs 61.11 and 61.13, which deal with waivers for compliance
dates and compliance testing, can be delegated if the State’s enforcement
and implementation procedures are adequate. Granting of waivers should
be in writing and the States should provide copies of each written waiver
to the Regional Office. Review of waivers should be part of the annual
audit process.
Paragraphs 61.08(e)(2), 61.11(e), and 61.13(c) are basically statements
clarifying the Administrator’s authority and the relationship of certain
provisions. States may want tnese same statements in their laws, but it
should be made clear that we are not relinquishing our enforcement responsi-
bilities through the delegation process. In the final analysis, the
Administrator retains concurrent responsibility for the enforcement of
the Act and any subsequent regulation developed under the Act.
The authorities that may not be aelegated to the State are listed
below. All other authorities may be delegated. Of course, the decision
of whether or not to delegate authority under any particular section rests with
the Regional Office based on an assessment of the State’s intentions and its

-------
3
legal and programmatic capability to implement the program. This guidance
establishes those sections which from a legal and policy perspective are able
to be delegated.
Authorities Which May Not Be Delegated To States Under Section 112
1. Paragraph 61.06 . The majority of applicability determinations
are expected to follow established precedents. Delegations should be
conditioned to ensure that all interpretations of 40 CFR Part 61 are
consistent with those made by the EPA in the past. A compendium of all
historical decisions has been prepared by SSCD and distributed to the
Regional Offices. These summaries should be sent to each State or local
agency that has been celegated NESIIAP authority along with an explanation
that these decisions represent NEShAP policy. Any situations not clearly
governed by precedent should be referred to the Regional Office for decision.
2. Paragraph 61.15 . This paragraph is simply a statement about EPA ’s
procedure for hanaling of Freedom of Information Act requests and confidential
business information. Section 4.7, page 8, of the Good Practices Manual for
Delegation of NSPS and NESHAP , February 1983, explains the options that are
available to the Regions and the States for handling this question.
3. Paragraph 61.14 . In order to ensure uniformity and technical
quality in the test methods used for enforcement of national standards,
the Agency will retain the authority to approve alternative and equivalent
methods. Requests for approval should be submitted to the Director,
Emission Standards and Engineering Division. A technical review will be
performed and any approved methods or changes to methods will be proposed and
subsequently promulgated in the Federal Register . At such time, the
alternative or equivalent methoos become a part of 40 CFR Part 61 and are
available for general use. This restriction on delegation does not apply
to case—by-case approval of minor modifications to sampling procedures or
equipment that affect a single source.
4. Paragraph 61.53(c)(4) . The list of approved design, maintenance,
and housekeeping practices affect the meaning and intent of the standard.
To ensure uniform application, the list is available only from EPA.
5. Equivalency Determinations, Section 112(e)(3) of the Clean Air Act .
Approval of an alternative means of erission limitation to any design,
equipment, work practice, or operational stanoard is accomplished through
the rulemaking process and is adopted as a change to the individual
subpart. This authority may not be delegated to the States. Certain
paragraphs in Parts 61 refer to potential alternative standards or procedures
for evaluating proposed alternatives. These paragraphs merely reiterate
the point that alternative means of emission limitations can be considered
and are not authorities that may be delegated. Examples of such paragraphs
include 61.66, 61.112(c), 61.151(c)(2), 61.152(b)(3), 61.153(c), 61.154(b)(2),
61.156(d), 61.242-1(c)(2), 61.244.

-------
4
On June 6, 1984, revisions were proposed to the General Provisions
of Part 61 (49 FR 23498). The proposed revisions included some section
number ch iges, and some sections were expanded. If you have questions
or need aLuitlonal guidance, please contact John Crenshaw (629—5571 FIS).
cc: Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions 1-Vill, X
R. Biondi, SSCD (E -341)
R. Campbell, OAQPS (MD-1O)
G. Eniison, OP.QPS (MD-b)
E. Reich, SSCD (EN-341)
F. Renner, OAQPS (140-10)
E. Salo, OGC (L —132A)
R. Shigehara, OAQPS/ESEI) (MD-19)
B. Steigerwald, OAQPS (MU-b)
0. Tyler, OAQPS/CPDD (MD-15)
G. Walsh, OAQPS/ESED (MD-13)

-------
112- /7 4 2a vdou S
po/i i iLi 2 ii S

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRANS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 112
(VOLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 112
* PN112—86—1O—01—009
GUIDELINE S-26 - ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARSENIC NESHAP FOR GLASS
MANUFACTURING PLANTS
* PN112—88—03—31—O10
REVISED ASBESTOS NESRAP STRATEGY

-------
PN 112-88-03-31-010
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH fl’iGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 3 1
o,-wi oc
hit 4110 P.A0I*1IO
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Asbestos NESHAP Strategy
FROM: John S. Seltz, Director
Stationbry Source Compli te Divisio’
Office of Air Qu l.ity P1 fling and Standard
Michael S. Alushir c 4 J. 4 k1k—
Associate Enforcement Coui4 e1 for [ r
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VtI, OVIII and X
Regional Counsels, Regions I—X
Attached is the revised strategy for the implementation
and enforcement of the asbestos demolition and renovation
requirements. The April 6, 1984 Asbestos Strategy Document
was issued concurrently with the repromulgation of the asbestos
NESHAP. rh. goal of the 1984 strategy was to attain 100%
complianc, through the implementation of an inspection plan.
According to the 1984 strategy an inspection plan could
consist of inspecting ‘all sources, all contractors, or arty
other program consistent with the Agency goal of 100%
compliance.’ Because the annual notification rate has risen
dramatically and is expected to be well above 50,000 for FY 88,

-------
—2—
It is longer feasible for moat agencies to inspect all si.
In. - ng all contractors may be the best alternative for an
.ff vs inspection plan, however, the 1984 strategy did not
full cribe how such a plan would be implemented. After
audit ng three Regional asbestos ESMAP enforcement programs,
the Inspector General’s office remarked that the 1984 strategy
Ndoee not provide additional criteria for developing an
effective inspection strategy. The revised strategy provides
the criteria for targeting inspections among a field of an
estimated 5.000 contractors as opposed to selecting inspection
sites from over 50,000 notifications. Inspection efforts
focused on contractors should result in a more resource—
effective enforcement program.
Major changes have been made to the original computer
tracking system described in the draft revised strategy. In
response to regional comments the national tracking system
will be in DBASE III format rather than CDS. This will, allow
tracking of the number of notifications and associated compli-
ance activity in each state, as opposed to worksite location
for each notificatLon. egions will be expected to send
quarterly reports of the data elements contained in APP DIX A
of the revised strategy to Headquarters, preferably through
electronic transmission. The aggregated nationwide database
information will be used to target inspections and promote
enforcement options as described in the strategy.
A new section on outreach has been added to the strategy
describing methods of communication with the regulated com-
munity. Other additions include new appendices on identifying
non—notifiers, EPA technical assistance, generic 113(a) and
temporary restraLnLng orders, and finalized guidance on
contractor listing. Each originally drafted section of the
revised strategy has been modified to accommodate comments
from the Regions, OTS, and ALAPCO.
Since the asbestos ESHAP program is primarily delegated
to the States, the success of this strategy depends on
implementation and cooperation from the States. It is
important that the States understand that the tracking system

-------
—3—
will, contain a nationwide database of contractor compijanc.
hi.toila.. and that the States will utilize this tracking
syst tsnaiv.1y. Any question, or comments should be
addr• to Jim Engel of my staff at 382—2877.
At t ac1i •nt
cc: Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Asbestos NESKAP Contacts
William Becker
Gerald Emison
John Neylan
David Kling
Sims Roy

-------
Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Enforcement Strategy
Introduction
Asbestos is recognized as a human and animal carcinogen
and, combined with cigarette smoking, a powerful co—carcinogen.
Malignant diseases caused by asbestos exposure include
bronchial carcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma, pleural and peritoneal
mesothelioma, alimentary tract carcinoma, and tumors of other
sites. Asbestosis, a fibrotic lung disease caused by asbestos
fibers, is also associated with long—term exposure.
These diseases are linked to ambient environmental
exposures as well as to occupational exposures. To reduce
ambient exposures and the accompanying health risk, EPA
regulated asbestos under the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS). This enforcement strategy
document has been prepared in order to ensure compliance with
the NESHAP standard. By specifying actions to be taken and a
procedure to follow, this strategy will provide effective and
uniform enforcement of the standard by Regions and delegated
States. This strategy document is also intended to provide
emphasis and assurances to Regional Offices and States that
asbestos occupies a high priority and that EPA is totally
committed to a strong enforcement posture.
Background
EPA first promulgated the asbestos NESHAP on April 6, 1973.
Parts of the standard were in the form of work practice
(nonnumerical) requirements. The Supreme Court held, in
Adamo Wrecking Compan,y v. United States , 434 U.S. 275 (1978)
that these were noE emissions standards within the meaning of
the 1970 Clean Air Act. Since EPA, at the time the asbestos
regulations were promulgated, had authority to promulgate and
enfores only emissions standards, the Court upheld dismissal
of th. criminal enforcement action brought against Adamo for
violations of 5112(c)(l)(B) of the 1970 Act.
i kugust 7, 1977, S 112(e) was added to the Act to
specifically authorize design, equipment. work practice.
and operational standards. Although regulations promulgated
since that time could contain work practice standards, there
was doubt as to the way of dealing with regulations promul-
gated prior to that time. EPA repromu]gated many of the
asbestos work practice standards on 3une 19, 1978. However,
some work practices were not repromulgated, and were not

-------
—2—
considered enforceable by EPA. This led to confusion and
greatly hindered litigation efforts. In an attempt to end
this confusion and ensure all aspects of the asbestos NESHAP
are enforceable, EPA repromulgated the entire asbestos standard
in April of 1984.
The strategy document presented here addresses training,
inspection techniques, judicial and administrative enforcement
mechanisms, and other aspects essential for a successful
program of compliance with the repromulgated regulations.
Flexibility is provided so that the enforcing authority, be
it the EPA Regional Office or the delegated State or local
agency, may select other options, provided a high Level of
compliance is achieved. The strategy also is designed to
ensure coordination between EPA Regions and their delegated
States. Since 8 States presently have asbestos enforcement
delegation, It Is essential these States f..l a part of the
process and have the capability and desire to successfully
enforce the standard.
An EPA Compliance Data System analysis showed that the
number of demolition and renovation sources is greater than
that of all other asbestos source categories combined, and
the compliance statue much worse. Th. strategy is thus
limited to the renovation and demolition category. An
additional reason for this limitation Is that since renovations
and demolitions are transitory operation., they are more
difficult to inspect and require specific enforcement guidance.
This limitation does not mean other asbestos sources should
-be rad, but means rather that EPA believes the States
have su ficlent knowledge of these other sources to do a
satisfactory job without additional guidance.
Summary of Regulations
Before discussing the components of an effective strategy,
it is nscessary to briefly outline the requirements of the
demolition and renovation provisions. These provisions are
found at 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M. The owner/operator of a
demolj%tort or renovation is exempt, pursuant to 561.145(b) and
Cd), o. emission reduction requirements if lees than 80 linear
metets (2 0 linear feetl of fria le asbestos materials covering
pipis or less than 15 m’ (160 ft ) of friable asbestos material
covering other facility components is involved, and notification
provisions of S61..146(a),(b), and (c)(1)—(5) are met for
demolitions.

-------
—3—
Section 61.147 concerns the wetting, stripping and remova...
of friable asbestos. It provides that friable asbestos
matirials used on any pipe, duct, boiler, tank, reactor,
turbine, furnace or structural member shall be adequately
wetted during stripping, and then removed from the building.
When prior authorization is obtained from EPA upon the
appropriate demonstration made pursuant to S61.147(c)(1)
and (2) of unavoidable equipment damage, a local exhaust
ventilation and collection system may be used to prevent
emissions to the outside air. Section 61.147(e) requires
that stripped or removed asbestos materials be wet during all
stages of demolition or renovation and related handling
operations, and S61.147(f) allows alternatives to wetting
during freezing temperatures. Section 61.145(c) exempts
demolition operations, pursuant to a State or local order, on
structurally unsound buildings from all requirements except
those enumerated in the subsection.
In addition, S6l.152 prohibits any visible emission from
the collection, packaging, transporting, or depositing of
asbestos from any demolition or renovation, and requires that
asbestos waste be deposited at acceptable waste disposal
sites. S61.156 prohibits visible emissions from an active
waste disposal site except under specified and limited
conditions. Because of regulatory limitations this strateg i
concentrates on asbestos removal operations as opposed to
asbestos waste transportation and disposal. When the asbestos
NESHAP is revised to allow for more attention to asbestos
waste disposal requirements, Regions and states should increase
their oversight of those requirements. In the interim
the strategy should include a program of inspecting each
disposal site to determine what are the usual practices with
respect to waste handling. After these initial inspections,
perform random multi—day inspections to observe the actual
disposal of waste at each site, and determin, who put waste
into the landfill during the period of surveillance so that
responsibility could be assigned to contractors if improper
disposal practices are noted at the landfill.

-------
—4—
Strategy Components
1. Outreach — EPA and the delegated agencies could
approach enfo ement of the asbestos HESHAP by devoting
resources entirely to catching owners/operators in the act
of violating NESHAP requirements and taking appropriate
enforcement measures. However, enforcement of the NESHAP
could be easier and more effective if it Is directed towards
a regulated community aware of EPA requirements rather than
a regulated community unsure of those requirements. By now
owners/operators should be familiar with the NESHAp, but
sometimes they could benefit from PA guidance such as
past EPA applicability determinations.
There are many methods of developing a compliance
assistance component to an enforcement program. A pamphlet
containing easy—to—understand explanations of the regula-
tions and phone numbers of appropriate agency personnel
who can provide further assistance can be distributed to
removal contractors and anyone else Concerned with the
hazards involved with asbestos removal. Another way for
EPA and delegated agencies to provide compliance assistance
is to meet the regulated community in person. Seminars
and demonstration workshops presented to contractors and
owners and managers of commercial buildings can be greatly
effective. In addition, discu jo forums with school
district administrators, architects, lenders, real estate
groups, and insurance agency representatives can create
a general public awareness of asbestos hazards and EPA
regulatory requirements. Radio talk shows concerning
asbestos hazards will produce the same effect. EPA ’s
Hazard Abatement Assistance Branch (HAAE), formerly Asbestos
Action Program, of the Office of Toxic Substances (O’rS)
offers technical assistance to the public through training
seminars, telephone contact with th. public, guidance
documents, and ether means which are all described
in APP DIX 1.. A and the delegated agencies should make
a sigotilcant Colmitment to public education and outreach
to creat. increased awareness and understanding of the
regulatjo among the regulated community and an atmosphere
of agency_contrac cooperation.
2. Contractor Training — Most states have established
some type of contractor certification or training program for
asbestos removal. Further, the Model Accreditation Plan under
the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (MERA) requires
that all states establish accreditation programs for persons
who inspect, develop management plans, or design or conduct
response actions in schools. APP JDIX I lists the status of
the state certification requirements for all states. States
which have not yet adopted certification requirements for
asbestos removal workers may have to make greater use of the

-------
—5—
outr•ach methods described in Section 1 to educate contractors
as to what inspectors expect to find at a removal site in
order to verify compliance with the NESHAP. HAAB asbestos
removal training is provided by the Office of Toxic Substances
(OTS) in response to legislation enacted for the Asbestos in
Schools program. The HAAB training centers and the training
they provide are discussed on pages 4 — 6 of Appendix L. In
addition to providing training on campus, some of these
institutions schedule training sessions at other locations
nationwide.
Regions should encourage states to adopt contractor
certification requirements for NESHAP removal activity.
Considering that contractors already need to be certified for
removal work under the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
CAMERA), a logical way for states to require certification
under the NESHAP is by expanding the AHERA certification
requirement to all demolition/renovation contractors.
3. Inspector Training — Inspector effectiveness at
finding violations and documenting evidence at subject
demolition and renovation sources is the basis for EPA’s
asbestos MESHAP enforcement program. The only way to
ensure this effectiveness is to provide inspectors with
training on inspection procedures and safety, and to
familiarize them with the NESHAP and other pertinent
regulations. To help accomplish this, SSCD has established
the Asbestos NESHAP Inspection Workshop — a classroom
training program available to the Regions and states.
In light of the many changes in EPA asbestos enforcement
since the Inspection Workshop began, SSCD is currently
revising the Workshop Manual and will periodically review
and update the revised manual in the future. This manual
should be published in April 1988 for distribution to the
Regions and delegated agencies.
Agencies should also consider sending their asbestos
inspectors to on. of the HAAB training centers identified
in APPUDIX T.. so that their inspectors will be aware of what
certifid removal contractors are being taught about complying
with tk. asbestos NESHAP. Because moat asbestos NESHAP
inspections are conducted by state and local inspectors, it
is important to .ncourage the delegated agencies to send
their inspectors to both the SSCD and HAAB training, as well
as any contractor certification training provided at the
state level.
4. Inspections — Inspections provide the foundation for
all asbestos NESRAP enforcement actions for substantive vio-
lations, and are therefore of primary importance in enforci.
the NESHAP. In most cases, it is necessary for the inspeCtOi.
to enter active removal areas both to determine compliance
and to collect evidence of any non—compliance.

-------
—6—
The following is a list of Positive Inspection
techniques:
o Bring copies of the NESHAP regulations to the inspection
site to leave with owner/operators and for the inspector’s
own reference;
• To the extent possible assess the site to be inspected,
in compliance with Section 114 and 4th Amendment require-
ments, prior to making your presence known;
° Along with presenting credentials, provide a calling
card for future reference by the facility owner/contractor;
° Clearly identify the line of authority between all parties
involved, i.e., subcontractor, oversight contractor,
general contractor, owner, etc.;
° Use a standard checklist and complete as much Information
as possible before entering a contaminated area in order
to minimize the time in the contaminated area;
° In addition to asking the appropriate representative if
he or she is aware of the regulations, ask them to verbally
describe their understanding of the regulation;
• Carry only essential items into the Contaminated area,
items such as a clipboard can be left outside;
° Samples should be taken at every site inspected,
When samples are taken, label immediately and log number
onto the inspection checklist and log onto a chain—of-
custody form;
• Photograph with waterproof automatic cameras;
• Istimat. the amount of asbestos in linear or square feet
bp pacing off or using a tape measure;
• Always conduct a quick to—the—point wrap—up meeting and
inform th. owner/operator of findings, but do not interpret
the regulation or make complianc, determinations;
° To the extent possible reference all discussions to
specific requirements in the regulation being enforced;
• Always wear appropriate safety gear.

-------
—7—
The inspection techniques referred to three items
which are especially important equipment for asbestos NESHAP
inspectors — checklist, camera, and safety gear. This
equipment 1 described below, is considered standard
inspection gear.
a) Checklist — In order to reliably document evidence
of compliance status at each subject workslte, the
inspector must enter all pertinent information onto
a reasonably detailed checklist while the findings
of the inspection are fresh in memory. The inspector
should complete as much of the checklist as possible
prior to entering the vorksite. So as not to make
the checklist an item requiring decontamination, the
inspector should not bring the checklist inside the
removal area, but instead complete the rest of the
checklist entries immediately after conducting the
inspection. A good checklist such as the example
shown in Appendix H will provide the inspector an
outline of what to look for during the inspection.
In order to complete the checklist the inspector
must enter the removal area. This reflects EPA’s
policy that inspectors should, whenever possible,
observe asbestos work practices in progress in orde
to assess compliance. When the barrier to a contair .
ment area is transparent or when asbestos fibers are
released outside the containment area, it may not be
necessary to enter the removal area to observe—work
practices. However, because samples are to be taken
during each inspection, it may still be necessary to
enter such a site to collect samples.
If an inspection reveals MESRAP violations, the
inspector should write a report summarizing the
inspection and specifying the conditions unique to
th. work site which could not be entered onto the
standardized checklist.
b) Camera — Photographing removal activity can provide
so.. of the strongest evidence of non—compliance.
Supplying inspectors with reliable cameras is necessary
to insure that photographic •vidsnce will contribute
to the agency’s cause should a civil action become
necessary. Waterproof automatic cameras are especially
useful in the wet environment found at many removal
sites, and will endure decontamination showers.
c) Safety Gear — EPA’s most recent guidance concerning
safety gear for asbestos inspectors is contained it
May 1987 1nterim Health and Safety Guidelines for
Asbestos Inspectors. These guidelines should be
referenced to ensure Inspector protection.

-------
-8—
Lflspectj reported in the Computer tracking system
outlined in APPENDIX A and subsequently reported into SPMS
must consist of sample collection and observation of work
practices whenever possible. Regional and delegated agency
inspectors should be attentive to the positive inspection
techniques and implement them whenever possible as well.
Of course, if an inspector arrives at an unfinished
removal site when no removal activity is Occurring, the
inspector will be unable to present credentials and questions
to the appropriate representative, observe work practices,
and conduct a wrap—up’ meeting to inform the owner/operator
of specific violations found, but will still be able to
take samples and photographs and complete a standardized
checklist as much as possible. It may still be possible
to make a compliance determination based on the evidence
presented.
5. Inspection Targeting — The number of notifications
received by EPA and the delegated agencies has risen from
20,537 in 1985 to 29,087 in 1986, and in 1987 this figure
rose to 43,496. Because of this tremendous increase, Regions
and their delegated agencies must make more efficient use of
inspectors’ time by implementing a targeting system which
strategically identifies which notifications or contractors
to follow up with inspections.
The computer tracking system described in Appendix A
is d signed to assist agencies in targeting their inspections.
The instructions contained in Appendix A establishes conventions
for the input and retrieval of contractor records, and because
the entire inspector targeting method which follows is based
on the use of the computer tracking program, these iristruc—
tions should be reviewed carefully. It will be required of
all delegated enforcement agencies to us. the tracking program
for inspection targeting. Prioritizing inspections by
identifying removal sites where violations are most likely
to occur will enable Regions and their delegated agencies
to make .or. efficient use of resources. Inspection priority
should be based on a simple evaluation of computer tracking
data iavelving th. assessment of contractor compliance history.
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate this sort of evaluation. Table 1
lists criteria discerned from the computer system, and
criteria found on individual notifications to be prioritized,
and gives numerical ratings for each criteria. By assigning
numerical ratings to the tracking and notification crtterLa
identified in Table 1, the inspection priority pertaining to
each notification received can be determined by comparing the
summation of the ratings to the rankings listed in Table 2.
This evaluation, or a comparable method of evaluation, should
be done for each removal activity to determine the need for
inspecting each work site.

-------
TABLE1 Tracking Criteria Rating
Contractor Is Listed as Described
in Section 7 of this Document ....... 10
Contractor Violated at Least Once
During 3 Most Recent Inspections .... 10
Contractor has Not Been
Inspected for Two Years .... 10
Contractor has Not
Been Inspected in past year 7
Contractor is Not Certified
by an Approved Accredited Program ... )
Contractor has a Recent
Trend of Notification Violations .... 7
Notification Criteria
NoNotificationReceived.............. 8
LateNoticeReceived ..... 6
Notice Missing Location,
Dates and/or Amount of Asbestos ..... 6
Notice Missing Other Items . 4
Worksite in Occupied Building or
Area of High Population Density ..... 5
TABLE 2 Priority Ranking
TOP Priority 10 or above
HIGH Priority 5 — 9
LOW Priority 0 — 4
An inspection targeting evaluation establishes inspection
priority based on computer tracking data. It does not limit
inspections to the criteria listed in Table 1. Citizen
complaints cannot be recorded in the computer tracking system,
but they should be followed up with inspections based on agency
judgment.
Non—Not if i.rs
t addition to the criteria listed in Table 1, special
attention should be given to removal jobs for which no
notification was received. As documented in the Inspector
General’s asbestos NESHAP audit report, efforts to identify
non—notifiers should include:
° Checking building permits or public works files;
0 Reviewing waste disposal site records;
• Discussing consistent underbidders with national
demolition contractors:
° Coordinating with state, county, and city departments
of building and health, and with Federal offices such
as OSHA and Department of Education;
0 Reviewing publications such as National Wrecking and
Salvage Journal, newspapers. and magazines.

-------
— 10 —
Region 3 has researched the problem of identifying
non—notifiers and has documented their findings in a
report which has been incorporated as APPENDIX F. Seven
licensing and permitting agencies and several landfills
in Philadelphia, PA and Richmond, VA were visited and
record/file reviews were conducted. Ii, these two cities
Region 3 found that reviewing records (e.g., manifests,
contracts) at the landfills was the most productive method
of identifying non—notifiers.
Because of differing levels of asbestos NESHAP enforce-
ment funding among delegated agencies, some agencies will be
capable of inspecting HIGH and TOP priority work sites as
well as some LOW priority sites, while other agencies may
be limited to inspecting mostly TOP priority sites. When
delegated agencies are finding it Increasingly difficult to
maintain a high level of asbestos HESHAP inspections due to
funding limitations,, they should adopt cost effective altern-
ative enforcement mechanisms which when combined with modest
inspection levels, will allow these agencies to maintain or
enhance their present enforcement posture. Such alternatives
are discussed in the following section.
6. Program Alternatives — Some states have remarked
that maintaining their established inspection levels is
difficult because of many changing demands being placed on
the program. In order to accomodate these states while
maintaining or enhancing their established enforcement posture,
Regions should seek an agreement which includes the incorpora-
tion of either of the following optional requirements into
their state enforcement program coupled with the inspection
targeting program outlined previously. When combined with a
penalty policy of sufficient stringency for each violation
type, the adoption of such requirements would be an acceptable
state asbestos NESRAP enforcement program modification.
I. Certification
Thu alt.rnative entails the adoption of a state—wide
contractor certification program, where the following
minisur requirements would apply2
At least one supervisor certified in asbestos removal
s?tall be present at each affected NESHAP removal site when
removal work is ongoing. Certification shall be attained
only by satisfactory completion of training at a state—
approved training program, one of the EPA—approved courses
identified in APPENDIX L, or any equivalent course. Any
state employing this enforcement alternative shall exercise

-------
— 11 —
the authority to revoke the certification of any removal
contractor found to be in violation of NESHAP
requirements. When a contractor becomes listed as described
in Section 6 of this document, certification should be revoked
automatically. Certification requirements developed under
AHERA, and expanded for all demolition and renovation
activities, would meet this requirement. Each certification
training course must Include the following:
a) Education about the hazards of asbestos exposure,
b) Clarification of NESHAP requirements,
c) Training in removal procedures,,
d) Training in transportation and disposal procedures,
e) Safety training. -
II. Asbestos Manifest
Delegated agencies can implement this alternative by requir-
ing waste shipment manifests for all asbestos waste shipments
from affected sources. The manifest should be similar in
detail and implementation as the Uniform Hazardous Waste
Shipment Manifest (Appendix C), but specifically designated
for asbestos containing waste. An asbestos manifest is a
waste tracking form used to verify that asbestos waste is
deposited at an approved waste site. Each removal operator
enters information onto the manifest pertaining to the
amount of asbestos waste, and the designated disposal
site, for each waste shipment from a removal site. The
transporter of the waste then acknowledges on the manifest
that he has received the indicated amount of asbestos
waste for shipment to the designated disposal site.
Before the transporter hauls the waste, the removal operator
keeps a copy of the manifest indicating that the transporter
has received the waste for shipment to a NESHAP approved
disposal site. When the transporter arrives at the disposal
site, the disposal site operator acknowledges on the
manifest that the asbestos as described by the generator
was disposed of at the designated disposal site. At this
point the manifest form is complete. Now, the original
is lint to the delegated agency informing enforcement
personnel that the waste was properly disposed, one copy
is sent to the removal operator indicating regulatory
compliance, and the other two copies are maintained by
the transporter and the disposal site operator.
III. Notification Fees
This alternative would require the owner/operator of a
removal site to submit notification with a notification
fee in an amount determined by the amount of asbestos
containing material involved in the removal operation.
For instance, if removal entails over 1000 linear feet
or 5000 square feet of asbestos containing material, a
$500 notification fee may be required. For removals

-------
— 12 —
involying less than 1000 linear feet or 5000 square feet
b@t greater than 260 linear feet or 160 square feet a
notification fee of $250 may be required. If the delegated
agency’s asbestos removal regulation covers removal act —
vities that involve levels of asbestos containing material
less than that of EPA’s threshhold (260 linear feet or 160
square feet), a different fee would be required. By
implementing this alternative delegated agencies can fund
a significant level of their enforcement program depending
on the level of fees required.
While these alternatives are not required as a mandatory
part of an acceptable asbestos demolition and renovation
enforcement program, they do represent examples of how state
and local agencies can improve their knowledge of the regulated
community. Although these options may have their own resource
demands, implementation of these kinds of activities should
ultimately allow state and local agencies to improve their
compliance rates while maintaining a reasonable resource
commitment.
Concurrent with the Implementation of one of the above
requirements. states must employ a penalty policy with fines
of sufficient stringency for each violation type in order to
achieve an acceptable enforcement alternative for maintaining
enforcement posture when inspection levels suffer from budgetary
restrictions.. Enforcement alternatives are to be aggressively
Implemented by states seeking cost effective enforcement
methods, and should not have the effect of diminishing the
state enforcement posture. A penalty policy change without
implementation is not acceptable. EPA and states must agree
on a minimum acceptable level of state inspections and vigorous
pursuance of violators.
7. Federal Enforcement Options — EPA has the authority
to use administrative and/or judicial enforcement against
asbestos NESSAP violators. Administrative actions may be
taken vh.n EPA has the opportunity to stop noncompliance and
establish KESBAP practices. EPA cannot collect penalties
adsiMatratively, although several states have that authority.
R.gi I should encourage states which are able to collect
administrative penalties to do ic liberally.
The-only way EPA can collect penalties is through judicial
action, considering that EPA arid the delegated states are
uncovering increasingly high numbers of violations, judicial
actions taken against violators should be expected to increase
also. Rowever, nationwide, this has not been the case. The
rate of asbestos NESHAP referrals has been relatively stagnant
as the rate of violations uncovered continues to rise substan-
tially. An intended effect of this strategy is to induce an
increased rate of referrals from the Regions and delegated
agencies.

-------
— 1.3 —
Fig ire 1 on page 14 illustrates the various enforcement
options. choosing the appropriate option for each demoLition,
renovation source in violation, for whjch EPA takes the
enforc ent prerogative, means using administrative and/or
judict&I enforcement action, unless the matter can be resolved
informally or hou1d be referred to OSHA or another EPA
program office.
I. Administrative Actions
A can pursue administrative actions through Section
1 ] .3(a)(3) orders or Section 303 orders, although Section 303
of the Act is seldom used in asbestos ESHAP enforcement.
Notices of Violation (NOV) 1 are often issued by EPA to
NESHAP violators, although NOVs issued by EPA have legal
significance only when issued to violators of State Imple-
mentation Plans (SIP). Because the CAA does not require the
use of NOVs for CIESHAP sources, an NOV issued to a NESHAP
source is nothing more than an informal warning.
Section 113(a)(3) orders may be issued to violators
when they are found out of compliance with substantive
requirements while removal work is ongoing. In order to
assist the Regions in this procedure. a generic 113(a)(3)
order which can be issued in one day is presented in APP DIX
M. Also included in APP DIX M is a generic temporary
restraining order which can be used if the situation is
considered serious enough. Section 113(a)(3) orders can
require immediate compliance and although EPA cannot collect
penalties with the order, the issuance of a §1 13(a)(3) order
subjects the source to penalty liability in a judicialactiOn
under ll3(b). Section ll3(a)(3) orders should also be
issued to sources which continuously submit deficient
notifications. Such an order prohibits further submittaL of
deficient notifications, and makes the contractor liable for
penalties pursuant to the order as well as the NESHAP itself.
Issuing an NOV in this situation does comparatively little.
An example of a combined Section I.l3(a)(3) order/Section 114
Information Request is shown in Appendix D.
II. Judicial Actions
J d1cial action under the asbestos NESHAP can take
the fots of a civil action as provided for in Section 113(b),
or a criminal action as provided for in Section 113(c).
EPA can also pursue a civil action under Section 303, however,
no Region has done this to date. The September 28, 1987
memorandum entitled “Procedures for Pre—Referral Settlement
of Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Cases (Appendix E)
outlines procedures for negotiated settlement through judtc1 .a 1 1
consent decree. These procedures are designed tO facilitate
1. NOV is used here as a generic term to include letter of
violation, finding of violation, notice of deficiency, etc.

-------
FIGURI
EPA or — Violation JYES Stat. and EPA lead EPA øioo... Appropriats
State ____________ EPA Dscid. N..pons. to NESHA?.
Inspection I Violation
NO State L..d
I
EPA I ,nItor.
Stat. Action
lnfor..i
Conf.r.nc.
with Sourc•
__ __ I _____ I ___ __
- 3O3 I Esgion D.v.Iops I 1Q
Por.ai I Judicial - 1 13( b) _ Litit .tton I I.tsv 1.f.rr•1 — Court
_______ - 113(c) [ Esport _______ 10001 Order
- ill.
Ad•Ini ,ti.tiv ,
__________________- 303
- IOSHAL
— Cross Progr - 17003 oF RCIA
a
- IiP4 I06(a). 107 of CUCL J
- fl’osc*t

-------
— 15 —
the settlement process and enable Reg2ons to increase
judicial enforcement without straining resources.
EPA may bring a S1].3(b) civil action for injunctive
relief requiring compliance with the regulations. EPA may
also seek civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day of
violation. EPA’s present asbestos NESHAP penalty policy
is shown in Appendix B. Although civil actions under
113(b) do not ordinarily seek immediate injunctive relief,
the broad grant of authority to commence a civil action
for a permanent or temporary injunction encompasses
temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
In other words, the Government could proceed under 113(b)
to seek immediate compliance with the asbestos standards,
as well as civil penalties. provided it can satisfy the
legal standard for immediate injunctive relief.
EPA can initiate a Section 113(c) criminal enforcement
proceeding when there is evidence that a person knowingly
violated the asbestos demolition and renovation requirements.
A conviction under the criminal provision of the Clean Air
Act can result in imprisonment of up to one year and/or a
penalty of up to $25,000 per day of violation, and greater
sanctions are faced for a subsequent conviction. The effect
use of the criminal provisions can provide a strong message
to the regulated community that EPA does not tolerate blatant..
disregard for the asbestos NESHAP.
III. Contractor Listing
Another useful enforcement option is contractor listing
as descibed in 40 CFR 515.10 — 16. When EPA lists a contractor
that contractor cannot be awarded any contract to perform work
where Federal funds are involved. Also, a listed contractor
cannot be subcontracted to remove asbestos by another contractor
under -contract with the federal government to perform asbestos
removal. Contractors convicted of criminal NESHAP violations
under CU Section 113(c) are automatically listed as provided
in 515.10 (Mandatory Listing). Under 515.11 (Discretionary
Listing) EPA can list contractors which have violated a
S113(e) administrative order, received any form of civil
ruling from any court, or are the subject of a civil enforcement
acti r m EPA. Additionally, if any person who owns or
sü .rv4ses a contractor firm is convicted of a criminal offense
by any court, that contractor firm can be listed. Appendix K
is intended to clarify the application of contractor listing.
State certification requirements should require that state
certification will be revoked if a contractor becomes liste
8. Choosing Enforcement Option — When detected, each
violation should be entered into the computer tracking syStt.
described in Appendix A so as to provide a record of viola-
tions listed by contractor. In order to assist in deciding
when these records indicate that a particular enforcement -
action is appropriate, the folloe ing tables were constructed.

-------
—16—
TABLE 1
Notification Violation Response
No notification 113(a) order
Submittal of late notification 113(a) order
which is not received in time
to schedule Inspection
Submittal of notification which 113(a) order
is missing dates, location and/or
amounts of asbestos
Submittal of art incomplete notice ‘Enter deficiency
of removal (Minor violations) on tracking system
Continued submittal of incomplete 113(a) order
notifications (Minor violations)
Violation of Order Civil Action
* As stated previously, this Is done for every violation type.
TABLE 2
Substantive Violations*
Detected during early stages 113(a) Order
of removal
I) Violation subsequently Consider Civil Action
corrected
ii) Violation Civil Action
cs tinu.s -
iii) sur. whether or not Issue 114 Information
violation corrected Request and Consider
Civil Action
Detected after removal or during Issue 113(a) Order
final stages of removal while writing civil
referral package
* Substantive violation is a work practice violation
detected during inspection or from a S114 information
request response.

-------
—17—
9. Assessing Penalties — The Asbestos Demolition/Renovat
Penalty Policy (Appendix B) provides he framework for
assessing penalties for settlement purposes under the asbestos
NESHAP. Consistent with the comprehensive penalty policy,
the Region should determine a preliminary deterence amount
by assessing an economic benefit component and a gravity
component. This amount may then be adjusted upward or downward
by consideration of other factors, such as degree of willfulness
and/or negligence, history of noncompliance, and ability to pay.
As stated by the Inspector General’s office, when resolving
Litigated cases contractors should be required whenever
appropriate to provide a list of asbestos removal jobs for
which the contractor did not get the bid, and the names of
the successful contractors. Also, delegated agencies should
be required to document any mitigating factors that result in
penalty waivers or reductions.
10. Reporting — The format for SPMS reporting has been
revised. The SPMS form shown in Appendix C provides the
format which will now be required for SP S reporting.
Violations will be reported in terms of substantive violations
(work practice violations dicovered during inspection or from a
5114 information request response) and notification violations
(late notices, notices lacking dates, location and/or amount
of asbestos in proper units). Also, the number of sources
inspected will be reported. When reporting the number of
referrals, include only those civil and criminal litigation
actions initiated in the same Quarter as the SPMS report
indicates. Collection referrals are not to be included.
Regions must ensure that there is no double—counting
of notifications. The practice of reporting two notifications
(one reported by the Region. and the other by the delegated
agency) for one removal activity makes it impossible to correctly
assess the number of removal job. for which notification
was submitted. The number of inspections reported from the
delegated agencies should consist of only those inspections
meeting the criteria for a reportable compliance inspection
as described in Section 4 of this document.
11. Pqion*l Oversig! — Regional Offices should
impleSflt an oversight program to ensure that the delegated
agencies are performing acceptable compliance Inspections,
and resolving violations appropriately. Performing joint
EPA-state inspections is the best method tO review delegated
agency inspections and establish the criteria which constitute
an acceptable compliance inspection. Each delegated state’s
program should be evaluated tO assess inspector training and
safety as well. For Regions with both delegated and undele
gated states, Regional inspections should be concentrated
in the undelegated states. Regions should construct written
reviewable inspection programs which incorporate the inspeCtL

-------
criteria documented in Section 4 of this document as well as
the targeting system established i’n Section 5 of this document.
Regions should also ensure that delegated states do likewise.
A written assessment of each delegated agency’s compliance
with grant conditions including the verification of program
results should be made, semi—annually by the Regions.
12. Cross—Program Coordination — In addition to being
regulated under the t4ESHAP program, asbestos is regulated
under OSHA provisions, the EPA Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Title I, and TSCA Title II. Under TSCA Title I,
the TSCA Worker Protection Rule regulates any asbestos
abatement work (removal, encapsulation, or enclosure)
performed by persons employed by state, county, or local
government in those states without an OSHA delegated program
or an EPA approved exempt program. These states are listed
in Appendix J. The Office of Toxic Substances expects to
extend coverage of its Worker Protection Rule to service
personnel who, in the course of operations and maintenance
activities, receive exposures comparable to those experienced
by private sector service workers performing work subject
to OSHA.
The OSHA provisions require an 8—hour time—weighted
average airborne employee exposure of not greater than 0.2
fibers per cubic centimeter of air. Engineering controls,
wet methods, respirators and special clothing are required.
The Worker Protection Rule imposes the same major require-
ments of the OSHA provisions, but differs in that the Worker
Protection Rule applies solely to activities involved in
asbestos abatement, in contrast to the OSHA standard which
applies generally to any construction activity involving
exposure to asbestos. NESHAP inspectors can help OSHA’s
enforcement efforts by reporting the absence of requiredOsHA
safety measures at inspected NESHAP removal site,. To help
implement such an effort the standardized NESHAP inspection
checklist (Appendix H) has a section for recording the
presence or absence of required OSHA measures. When the
negligence of OSRA requirements are noted by NESHAP inspectors,
OSHA should be notified as soon as possible. When the negli-
gence of OSHA requirements are observed at a NESHAP site
where removal work is being done by state or local government
employees at one of the states listed in Appendix 3, in
addition to notifying OSHA, the inspector should ensure that
the TSCA Regional Asbestos Coordinator (RAC) is notified as
well for possible violations of the Worker Protection Rule.
Under TSCA Title II, the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act (AHERA) requires local educational agencies (LEAa)to
inspect school buildings for asbestos containing material,
and develop and implement managerial plans. Persons designing
and conducting response actions (i.e., removal, encapsulation,
enclosure, or repair) in a school building must be accredited
‘r Ph.jt activity.

-------
—19—
EPA MESHAP and TSCA programs in the Regions should be
coordinated to maximize information Collection and sharing,
consolidate compliance assistance efforts, and unify enforce-
ment activities among all, the Agency’s asbestos programs.
Pilot programs should be initiated to formally or informai ,],y
coordinate NESHAP and TSCA activities in the field. In Region
VII, a full—time technical assistant under the Senior Environ-
mental Employment program of the American AssocLation of
Retired Persons (AARP) acts as liason between NESHAP and
TSCA efforts. In Region X, the NESHAP Coordinator and the
TSCA RAC voluntarily coordinate program activities to
maximize resources and provide a more unified presence to
the affected public.
When a NESHAP inspector inspects a renovation taking
place at a school, the inspector should ascertain whether or
not site supervisors and removal workers are accredited under
the EPA Model Plan required by AHERA. If AHERA accredidatiori
requirements have not been met, this should be reported to
the TSCA RAC. Considering that most TSCA inspections are
performed by AAPP personnel who are restricted from entering
removal sites when work is ongoing, TSCA can benefit greatly
from any pertinent information obtained by the observations
of NESHAP inspectors inside the removal area. If the TSCA
program develops a pamphlet describing AHERA record—keeping
and clearing response action requirements, NESHAP inspectors
can hand these out at schools they inspect. NESHAP inspectors
can verify if transportation and disposal of asbestos
wastes from these schools is in accordance with NESHAP/DOT
requirem ’ents. Also, NESHAP personnel should Inform the TSCA
section when a notification is received from a school.
EPA TSCA inspectors should ‘notify the NESHAP Regional
Asbestos Coordinator (RAC) whenever apparent violations of
wetting, begging, no visible emissions, and/or disposal
requirements at NESHAP removal sites are observed by their
inspectors. TSCA inspectors can also provide the NESHAP
RAC with a list of known removals based on records inspec-
tions. OSRA inspectors should also notify the NESHAP RAC
when pOtential NESHAP violations are observed.
• As ebere of the Federal Asbestos Task Force established
i’n June 1983, EPA and OSHA are mandated to develop a unified
federal approach for the regulation of asbestos. The preceed—
ing coordination recommendations are examples of objectives
which should be agreed to in writing by the EPA offices and
OSHA to memorialize that this type of cooperation will take
place.

-------
PN 112-86-10-01-009
tD 514)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
J - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I q( DQO1 C
OFFICE OF
- All AND IADIAT1ON
OCT-HE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJELT: Guideline 5—26 — Entorcement ot the Arsenic NESHAP
tor Glass Manutacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart N)
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Ottice ot Air Quality Planning and Standaris
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, UI, i and IX
Air, Pesticides, ana Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and To ics Division Ljirectors
Regions VII
The attached guideline is being torwarded to you to assist
you in the implementation ana entorcement or the arsenic National
Emission tanaards ror Hazardous Air Pollutants (N SHAPS) tor
glass manutacturing plants (Subpart N).
It you have any qu tions or comments on this guideline,
please contact Doreen L3ntor in the Stationary Source Compliance
Division at FTS 382— r4.
- - f
-:c’arQ E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Michael Ajust -iin Stan ut e
bob Ajax Ron Myers
George Walsn Jan Myers
Jim Engel

-------
S—26 GUIDELINE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ARSENIC NESHAP REGULATIONS
FOR GLASS MANUFACTURING PLANTS
This guidel.ine is being issued to assist the Regional
Offices in the enforcement of one of the NESHAP regulations tor
the control of arsenic emissions. Three types of tacililities
are required to be controlled by these reyulations: (1) glass
manufacturing plants, (2) primary copper smelters, and (3) arsenic
trioxide and metallic arsenic production tacilities. This
guideline addresses glass manufacturing plants only.
Arsenic was declared a hazardous air pollutant on June 5,
1980. Regulations were proposed for the control of arsenic
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) 40 FR 59532,
on August 22, 1983. These regulations were promulgated on
August 4, 1986. Since this regulatory framework has been
previously utilized for the control of asbestos, beryllium,
mercury, vinyl chloride, and benzene, additional helptul
information is available in Guidelines 5—17 thru S—20, which
otter some general guidance relative to the procedural
requirements of the NESHAP program.
Summary of Requirements
The standard covers each glass melting turnace that uses
commercial arsenic as a raw material, except that pot furnaces
(refractory vessels in which glass is melted by indirect heating
and where the openings are covered with refractory stoppers
during melting) are exempted. Each owner or operator must either
1) vent all inorganic arsenic emissions from each glass melting
rurnace to a control device and reduce emissions by at least
85%, the level of reduction achievable by an electrostatic
precipitator or tabric tilter (S61.162(a)(2) and (b)(2)), or
2) maintain uncontrolled (i.e. preceediflg an add—on control
device) arsenic emissions at 25 Mg/year (2.75 TPI) or less tor
existing plants (S61.162(a)(l)), or at 0.4 Mg/year (0.44 IPY)
or less for new plants (S61.l62 b)(1)).
It the owner or operator intends to meet the standard by
using a control device, s/he is required to continuously monitor
opacity and temperatures and to submit semiannual reports of
excess opacity. An owner or operator may bypass the control
device for a limited period of time for designated purposes such
as maintenance of the control device, upon prior approval from
the Regional Office.

-------
—2—
If the owner or operator intends to meet the Standard by
limiting uncontrolled arsenic emissions, s/he is required to
calculate the uncontrolled arsenic emissions semiannually, an
to rej. ort if the emission rate is above the applicable limit.

-------
—3—
A. Source Notification
The Regional Offices should notity all potentially affected
sources immediately rollowing the promulgation of the arsenic
NESHAP regulations, or immediately upon identification of
affected sources anytime after promul-gation (see guideline S—17
for example notification). A list of all known glass n anutac-
turing plants using arsenic as a raw material is attached
(Table 1). This list includes 75 furnaces at 27 plants, and
includes both controlled and uncontrolled furnaces, and furnaces
emitting arsenic at levels both above and below the threshold of
25 Mg/yr. This regulation would require two of these furnaces
to install additional controls or reduce arsenic usages and would
require at least six furnaces to maintain their present controls.
However, this list may not be exhaustive, and it includes many
emission estimates. Since new plants may have been constructed,
additional plants may have begun using arsenic as a raw material,
and some plants may be unidentified as of yet, additional inves-
tigation should be made to complete the list. Also, a number of
companies are investigating the possibility of reducing or elimi-
nating arsenic in soda—lime batch formulations, which may reduce
the number of affected facilities. Preterably, all glass plants
should be notified of the regulations, because they will become
sub3ect if they begin using arsenic as a raw material in the
future. All affected sources should be coded into CDS.

-------
—4—
B. Determination of Compliance (40 CFR 61.164)
1. Initial Report (40 CFR 61.10)
The own or operator of each existing source is required
to submit an initial report to the Administrator by November 2,
1986. This initial report should include:
—name and address of the owner or operator,
—source location,
—brief description of the nature, size, design, and method of
operation (including capacity and emission points),
—the average weight of arsenic processed per month over the
previous 12 months as determined by direct measure or
materials balance,
—a description of the existing control equipment (including
efficiency), and
—a statement of the teasibility of complying with the
standard by November 2, 1986.
It the owner or operator is unable to comply with the standard
within the 90—day period, s/he may apply for a waiver of
compliance (See Guideline S—19). Sources which need to
install control equipment may be granted a waiver for up to
two years it the time is needed for purchase and installation.
Reasonable compliance schedules for installing fabric
filters ana ESP’s are attached (Table 2).
For any source for which a performance test is required,
the owner or operator must notify EPA at least 30 days betore
the test and must submit the results to EPA within 60 days of
the test, as indicated in the next section.
For any source wnich can demonstrate compliance by
means of art emission calculation alone, the owner or operator
must submit to PA by September 18, 1986 (or within 45 days of
start—up or modification) a written report of the calculated
estimates of arsenic emissions. (NOTE: In the proposal,
this report was required to be submitted within 90, rather
than 45, days. Sources may be unprepared for this change
and may require more time.)

-------
—5—
For new and modified sources (for wriich construction or
modification commenced after Ju1y 20, 1983, including any
existing furnace which begins to use arsenic — see tollowing
dxscussion), €.heowner or operator must apply for approval
to construct or modify (required by Sfil.07) and provide
process and emission data so that EPA may determine if the
source will be able to comply with the standard. After
approval, the owner or operator is required to notifj EPA of
the anticipated and actual start—up dates as indicated in
S61.09.

-------
—6—
Determination of Whether a Source is “Modified” based on
Arsenic USaQe
Backgrou nd Information
“Moditi.cation” is defined in the- General Provisions,
40 CFR §61.02 as “any physical change or change in the method
of operation . . . which increases the amount of any hazardous
air pollutant . . . or which results in the emission ot any
hazardous air pollutant not previously emitted, except that
• . . an increase of the proauction rate, if such increase
does not exceed the operating design capacity . . . (or) an
increase in hours of operation . . . (shall not be considered
a change in the method of operation)”.
“New source” is defined as “any stationary source, the
construction or modification ot which is commenced after
(proposal)”.
The reamb1e to the promulgated standards (Federal
Register Vol. 51, No. 149, August 4, 1986, p. 27997) states
“(s)ince proposal, the use of arsenic in some glass melting
turnaces has been eliminated and the Agency believes that this
trend is likely to continue. The companies that operate these
furnaces have indicated that they do not plan to resume using
arsenic. The cutoff applied to new or moditied glass melting
furnaces is based on consideration of cost and economic tactors
and has been retained in the promulgated standard to discourage
reintroduction of arsenic in furnaces that have recently elimi-
nated its use and to discourage future use. The Agency believes
that this is appropriate to prevent risks from increasing near
those furnaces that have recently eliminated arsenic use and
because reasonable alternatives to exceeding this cutoff level
are available at. these tacilities. These include the use of
low—arsenic glass recipes and the use ot controlled turnaces
tor ?roduction ot tnose glass types whicn would result in
uncontrolled emissions ot arsenic of more than 0.4 Mg (0.44
ton) per year.

-------
—7—
Discussion
Many furnaces subject to the arsenic NESHAP will typically
melt a variety of glasses with different arsenic contents and
emission tac ors. It is necessary to determine whether furnaces
will become moditieø sources, and thus subject to the more
stringent emission limit, on the basis of these changes i t t the
method of operation.
The above information indicates that it a furnace has
never used arsenic and starts arsenic use any time after pro—
posal, that turnace should be considered a modified source.
If a furnace has used arsenic in the past, but has ceased
its use, it becomes a modified source at any point after pro-
posal that it resumes the use ot arsenic. Because arsenic
usage is to be calculated as a rolling 12—month average every
6 months, if a furnace does not use arsenic during any such
12—month period, (starting from the 12—month period immediately
preceeding pro 1 . osal) that furnace should be considered a non—
arsenic furnace, and any addition of arsenic in the future will
cause this furnace to become subject to the more stringent
standard for new and modified furnaces.
If a turnace has continuous1 used arsenic since the
12—month period before proposal, it would be a modified source
if arsenic emissions increase above previous levels. Operating
records should be reviewed to determine if there has been any
12—month rolling average where arsenic emissions were higher
than a previous 12—month period. If so, the source should be
consjQered modified. It not, the semiannual rolling averages
calculated by the source should routinely be monitored to see
trtat emissions do not increase in the future. It emissions
do increase, the source is moattied and is required to either
install controls or change operation in some way so that
uncontrolled emissions will be limited to 0.4 Mg/yr arsenic.
There are several exceptions to this:
(I) A source may argue that this period of lowest arsenic
emissions is not representative of the typical operation of
that furnace. These claims should be evaluated on a case—by—
case basis. However, it the reason tar the low arsenic emis-
sions was that the furnace was successfully using a substitute
tor arsenic, then the lower emission rate should be considered
representative operation.

-------
—8—
(2) It the increase in arsenic emissions is due solely
to an incre 3e in productions then the furnace should not be
considered oditied . However, this refers to the production
rate and hours of operat ion of the furnace, not tor the indivi-
dual glass types; Therefore, if a turnace has increased produc-
tion of a high—arsenic glass but at the same time has decreased
production of a low—arsenic or non—arsenic glass such that
overall arsenic emissions increase but total production remains
constant, then the furnace should be considered modified.
In summary, for all furnaces which choose to demonstrate
compliance with the 2.5 Mg/yr uncontrolled arsenic emission
standard tor existing sources, their operating records for the
period trom August 22, 1982 (12 months before proposal) to the
present, as well as all future semiannual calculations of uncon-
trolled arsenic emissions, should be reviewed to determine
whether the furnace has been modified because of these changes
in operation.

-------
—9—
2. Emission Test (40 CF R 61.164)
by November 2, 1986 (or within 90 days ot startup tor a
new source), the Owner or operator must test emissions from
the source unless a waiver of emission testing is obtained
under S6l.13- See Guideline S—20).
The owner or operator must provide the Regional Office
at least 30 days prior notice of the emission test and
demonstration of the opacity monitoring system, it applicable.
Emission tests are to be conducted while the Source
is operating under conditions that are representative of
those from which the maximum arsenic emissions will result,
as may be specitied by the Regional Oft ce. Usually, this
will be under conditions representative of the expected
maximum (allowable) procuction rate. However, for sources
melting more than one t ipe of glass, or for sources with
multiple rurnaces emitting to a single control device, the
emission test should be conducted while the source is operating
at the expected maximum production rates for the glass types
generating the greatest amounts of arsenic. urnaces producing
non—arsenic glass should also oe operating during the emission
test, as would be representative of a source’s usual operation.
Another test may be required later if source operation changes
so that the original testing operating conditions are no
longer representative of “worst case” operation.
The owner or operator must furnish the Regional Office
with a written report of the emission test results and
associated calculations within 60 days of the test, and must
retain records of emission test results and other data needea
to determine emissions for two years.

-------
—10—
Furnaces with Uncontrolled Arsenic Emissions Above
2.5 Mg/yr (existing) or 0.4 Mg/yr (new or modified )
(S61.l 4(e))
Unless an alternative test method is approved (refer
to Guideline 5—18 for procedure), the owner or operator of
each furnace must demonstrate compliance with the 85% arsenic
reduction requirement in S61.162(a)(2) or (b)(2) by using
Method 108 to determine the concentration of arsenic in the
inlet and outlet yas streams to the control device. Each
emission test is to consist of three 60—minute test runs, each
consisting of simultaneous testing of the inlet and outlet gas
streams. The gas streams must contain all ot the gas exhausted
trom the gas melting furnace.
The percent reduction for each run will be computed as follows:
( Cb — Cp) X 100
0= Cb
D = percent emission reduction
Cb = arsenic concentration in stack gas entering the
control device, as measured by Method 108
Ca = arsenic concentration in stach gas exiting the
control device, as measured by Method 108
The average percent reduction is equal to the arithmetic mean
of the results ror the three runs, and must be equal to or
greater than 85% for the source to be in compliance.

-------
—11-b
Furnaces with Uncontrolled Arsenic Emissions Under
2.5 Mg/yr (existing) or 0.4 Mg/yr (new or modified )
(S61.164(c) ana (d))
If less than 8.0 Mg arsenic/year (8.8 TPY) is added to an
existing furnace,or less than 1.0 Mg arsenic/year (1.1 TPY)
is added to aThew or modified furnace, the owner or operator
will usually be able to demonstrate compliance with the
uncontrolled emission limits by an emission calculation only.
A theoretical arsenic emission tactor should be calculated for
each type of glass produced during the 12-month period, as
tollows:
= (A 1 x Wbi) + (Aci X — Agj
theoretical uncontrolled arsenic emission factor
(g/kg) for each glass type (i)
= fraction by weight of arsenic in fresh batch for
eacn glass type (i)
Wbj = weight (g) of fresh batch melted per kg of glass
roducea for each glass type (i)
Acj = fraction by weight of arsenic in cullet for each
glass type (i)
= weight (g) of cullet melted per kg ot glass produced
for each glass type (.i)
Agi. = weight (g) of arsenic per kg glass produced for
each glass type (i)
The tneoretical uncontrolled arsenic emissions for the 12—month
period is estimated as follows:
= ( T 1 x G j
106
= theoretical uncontrolled arsenic emission estimate
for the 12—month period for each glass type (Mg/yr)
= theoretical uncontrolled arsenic ep iss1on factor
for each type of glass produced during the 12—month
period (as calculated above)
= kg of eacri arsenic—Containing glass type (i)
produced during the 12—month period

-------
—12—
The total theoretical uncontrolled arsenic emissions for each
12—month period is equal to the sum of these emission estimates
(Y 1 ) for each glass type produced. If this is equal to or less
than 2.5 Mg for existing plants, or 0.4 Mg for new plants, the
source is in-compliance and no emission testing is required.
It the total is above these limits, then the source is required
to test as described below.
The following procedure is required for existing Sources
using more than 8.0 Mg arsenic/year, new sources using more
than 1.0 Mg arsenic/year, and for sources using less than these
amounts but which are unable to demonstrate compliance solely
by the calculation procedure above. The theoretical uncontrolled
arsenic emission factors (T 1 ) and estimates (Y 1 ) should again be
calculated tor each glass type produced during the 12—month
period as described above. mission testing, using Method 108,
must then be conducted during production of the glass type with
the highest theoretical uncontrolled arsenic emissions. The
actual uncontrolled arsenic emission factor should be computed
as follows:
Ra =
P
Ra actual uncontrolled arsenic emission factor (g/kg)
Ea actual uncontrolled arsenic emission rate, from
Method 108 (g/h)
P = rate of glass production (kg/h), determined by
dividing the weight or glass pulled from the furnace
during the emission test b ’ the number of hours taken
to perform the test
i turnace correction factor (F) to relate the theoretical and
actual uncontrolled arsenic emission factors should be calculated
as follows (Ra and T 1 should be the same glass type):
T 1

-------
—13—
The total uncontrolled arsenic emission rate tor the
12—month period should be computed by applying this furnace
correction factor to all of the theoretical emission factors,
as follows:
n
U = ( T 1 x F x G 1 )
i=l i0 6
U = total uncontrolled arsenic emission rate (Mg/year)
n = number ot arsenic—containing glass types produced
during the 12—month period
If the total uncontrolled arsenic emission rate is less than 2.5
Mg/yr for an existing furnace, or 0.4 Mg/yr for a new turnace, the
source is in compliance. It the total is above these values, then
the source is in violation and must install controls. However,
the source may opt to conduct Method 108 tests on the remaining
glass types compute type—specific correction factors, and
attempt to demonstrate compliance in that way.
Example 1:
It the glass type produced during the Method 108 test is
the only glass type to be produced for the initial 12—month
period, then the actual arsenic emission factor can simply
be multiplied by the amount of glass produced to calculate
total yearly arsenic emissions. (If less than 8.0 Mg (or
1.0 Mg) arsenic/year were added to the furnace, a Method
108 test would be unnecessar ..)
Ea = .045 lb/hr (trom Method 108)
P = 900 lb/hr
Ra = Ea = . 045 = .1 lb As/ton glass
900
Total yearly arsenic emissions = (Ra) (annual
production) = (.1 lb/ton)(4000 ton/yr)= .2 £PY As

-------
Example 2:
If t so or more glass types are produced, a theoretical arsenic
emission factor, based on a materials balance, Should be
calculated tor every type of ylass that will be produced.
This should be multiplied by the correction factor to calculate
an actual arsenic emission factor tor each type of glass.
Each actual arsenic emission factor should then be multiplied
by the amount of that glass that will be produced to calculate
yearly arsenic emissions for each glass type, and the
results summed to calculate total yearly arsenic emissions.
Assume 3 types of glass (A,B,C) are produced in one
furnace
For Glass A, from above, Ra(A) .1 lb As/ton glass
Annual production ot Glass A = 3000 TPY
Theoretical arsenic emission factor (TA) =
.08 lb As/ton glass
Correction factor = .1 = 1.25
.08
For Glass B, TB = .075 lb/ton
Ra(B ) (.1J75)(l.25) = .09 lb/ton
Annual production of Glass B = 500 TPY
ior Glass C, T = .4 lb/ton
Ra(C) = (.4)(J. .25) .5 lb/ton
Annual production of Glass C = 750 TPY
Total yearly arsenic emissions
annual production) + (Rab))(B’S
annual production) + (RS(C))(C’5 annual
production)
(.1 lh/ton)(3000 TPY) + (.09 lb/ton)(51J0 TPY)
+ (. lb/ton)(750 TPY)
= .15 TPY + .021 TPY + .19 TP = .36 TP

-------
—15—
The Test Methods in Appendix 8 of Part 61 are to be used
unless an alternative method has been approved by the Director
ot the Emission Standards and Engineering Division. If the
results obtained by an alternative method are thought to be
inaccurate, the Regional Office may require the use of a refer-
ence method. - 1r the results obtained by the rererence method
do not agree with those of the alternative method, the results
obtained by the reference method will revai1.

-------
—16—
C. Emission 4onitortn (40 CFR 61.163)
Art o iner or operator complying with §61.162(a)(2) or (b)(2)
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
1) a continuotis monitoring system tor measuring opacity 01:
the extraust gas and
2) a monitoring device for the continuous measurement of
the temperature of the gas entering the control device.
These should be installed, and their operational status yen—
tied, prior to the emissions test. A report of the C M eval-
uation should be furnished to the Regional Office within 60
days of the evaluation. The purpose of the transntissometer
will be to indicate when the control device may not be operating
properly and emissions may be exceeding the appLicable limit.
The ret rence method used to demonstrate compliance with the
emission limitation remains Method 108. As described in the
following discussion, a sourcespecitic opacity limit is to
be derived for each individual facility, which will, be based
on the opacity during an emissions test demonstrating compliance.
This level would be viewed as indicative of a properly operated
and maintained control device.
Opacity shoula be monitored during each of the three
runs of the emission test. During the emission test, process
and control equipment should be operated so that opacity is
minimized, as may be specitied by the Regional Ottice.
Monitoring results should be reduced to b—minute averages,
ana a source—specific opacity limit corresponding to the
97.5% upper confidence level of a normal or lognorinal (which-
ever is more representative) distribution of the average
opacity values shoula be determined. Temperature of the gas
entering the control aevice should also be monitored during
each test run, ana Is—minute temperature averages should be
determined. An owner or operator may redetermine both these
values it this procedure is repeated during each test run
of an emission test demonstrating com liance.
All continuous monitoring Systems should e in con-
tinuous operation as described in §61.163(f). All opacity
data should be reduced to 6—minute averages, not including
data from periods 01: breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and zero and span aajustments. Fifteen—minute averages of
temperature should also be calculated.
The Regional Ottice may approve, atter receipt and con-
sideration of written a plicatiort, an alternative continuous
monitoring system (parameter—based, etc.) to replace the CE M.

-------
—17—
D. Recordkeeping (40 CFR 61.165)
All owners or operators of glass melting turnaces using
arsenic as a raw material are subject to recordkeepi.ng and
reporting requlrements. Each owner or operator must retain for
a minimum of two years the following i ntormatiori:
1) all measurements, including continuous monitoring for
opacity and temperature,
2) all calculations used tor emission estimates and all
records of emission test data,
3) all monitoring system performance evaluations, including
calibration checks and adjustments,
4) occurrence an duration of all startups, shutdowns or
malfunctions Ct turnace,
5) all malfunctions at air pollution control system,
6) all periods when any continuous monitoring system or
aevice is inoperative,
7) all maintenance and repairs made to each air pollution
control system, continuous monitoring system, or
monitoring device, and
8) it permission to bypass the control device is obtained,
the dates the control device is bypassed and steps taken
to minimize arsenic emissions during that period.
daitionally, each owner or operator ot a glass plant
complying with §61.162(a)(l) or (b)(l) must determine and record
every six months:
1) tne uncontrolleci arsenic emission rate for the preceeding
12—month period (or 6—month period, tor the tirst deter-
mination) using measured or calculated arsenic emission
ractors (as applicable) multiplied by each respective
glass productior rate, and

-------
—18—
2) an estimate of the uncontrolled arsenic emission rate
for the torthcoming 12-month period, taking into
consideration anticipated changes in production rates,
glass... types, and other factors.
For these semiannual determinations, .it would not be necessary
to conduct a Method 108 test again. The initial correction
tactor could be applied again to calculate the measured arsenic
emission factor for each glass type.

-------
—19—
E. Reporting (40 CFR 61.165)
Each owner or operator complying with S61.162(a)(2) or
(b)(2) must Submi€ written reports to the Administrator semiannually
if excess opa ity occurred during the preceeding six-month period.
An occurrence of excess opacity is any 6—minute period where the
average opacity exceeded the source—specitic opacity level.
Excess opacity reports would not be used to cite a source in
violation, but would alert enforcement personnel that the
control device may not be operated and maintained properly and
to indicate that an inspection and/or emission test may be
appropriate. All semiannual reports should include:
1) magnitude of excess opacity, conversion factors usea,
dates and times ot each occurrence,
2) specitic identification of excess opacity occurring
during start—ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, and
3) dates and times of each period when the continuous
monitoring system was inoperative (except for zero and
span checks) and the nature of repairs or adjustments.
These reports must be postmarked by the 30 th day following the
end or the six—month period.
An owner or operator may apply to the Regional Administrator
for apI roval to b jpass the control device for limited periods,
as described previously. This application must be submitted at
least 60 days bezore the bypass period is to begin, and should
incluae:
1) name and address of owner or operator,
2) location of source,
3) description of nature, size, design, and operation or source,
4) the reason it is necessary to bypass the control device,
5) the length or time needed to bypass the control device,

-------
—20—
6) steps that will be taken to minimize arsenic emissions
during the bypass,
7) the quantity of emissions that would be released if no
steps zere taken to reduce emissions,
8) the expected reduction in emissions due to steps taken
during the bypass to minimize emissions, and
9) the type of glass to be produced during the bypass and an
explanation of why non—arsenic or lower—arsenic glass
could not be melted during the bypass period.
If an owner or operator of a source complying with the 85%
arsenic reduction requirement wishes to reduce arsenic usage and
comply with the uncontrolled arsenic emission limitation instead,
s/he should notify the Regional Office of this change and includeS
the necessary calculations and emission test data to demonstrate
that uncontrolled emissions will remain below 2.5 (or 0.4) Mg/year.
Each owner or operator complying with s61.162 (a)(l) or
(b)(l) must report the uncontrolled arsenic emission rate if
uncontrolled arsenic emissions exceed 2.5 Mg/yr for existing
plants, or 0.4 Mg/yr for new plants. If estimates show that
arsenic emissions have exceeded 2.5 (or 0 4) Mg/yr for the
preceediny i2—month period (or 6—month period, in a first
report following the compliance demonstration), this is a violation
and must be reported within 10 days of the end of the 6—month
reporting period. If estimates show that arsenic emissions will
exceed 2.5 (or 0.4) Mg/yr, the owner or operator must comply with
S6l.162 (a)(2) or (b)(2) ana, within 10 days, notify the
Regional Office of the anticipated date ot the emission test.

-------
—21—
Table 1: Emission Control for Arsenic Using Glass Plants
Expected
Number o Compliance
Plant No. Name/Location Furnaces Methoda ,b
1 Corning, Martinsburg, WV I PRC
2 Corning, Charleroi, PA 1 PR
Corning, Charleroi, PA 1 CU
3 Corning, Fail Brook, NY 2 PR
Corning, Fall Brook, NY 3 U L
4 Corning, State College, PA 1 PR
5 GTE—S lvania, Central Falls, RI 1 PR
6 North American Phillips, Danville, KY 1 PR
7 1enJo Glass, Milton, WV 1. U L
8 Brooke Glass Co., Wellsburg, WV 2 UEL
9 Corning, Corning, NY 2 UEL
10 Davis—Lynch Glass, Start City, WV 1 UE [ ..
11 Fenton Art Glass, Williaxnstofl, WV 4 U L
12 Fostoria Glass, Moundsville, WV 1 UEL
13 GTE, Versailles, KY 1 UEL
14 Indiana Glass, Dunkirk, IN 9 U L
15 Jeanette Shaae & Novelty, Jeanette, WV 3 UEL
16 Nourot Glass, Benica, CA 2 UEL
17 Owens—Illinois, Shreveport, LA 3 UEL
18 Owens—IllinOiS, Mt. Pleasant, PA 1 UEL
19 Owens—IllinoiS, Pittston, PA 2 (JEL
20 Owens—IllinOis, Toledo, OH 9 U .L
21 Paul Wissnach Gaiss, Paden City, WV 5 tJEL
22 Peltier Glass Co., Ottawa, IL 6 UEL
2 RCA, Circieville, OH 2 UEL
24 Scandia Glass Works, Kenava, WV 2 UEL
25 Shott O tica1, Duryea, PA 3 UEL
26 Vandermark Merritt Glass, FlemingtOfl NJ I UEL
27 Westmore1afl Glass Co., Pittsburgh, PA 4 UEL
a UEL = Uncontrolled .m ission Limt (2.5 Mg/yr)
PR = Percent Reduction (85%)
CU = Cease Arsenic Use
b Some ot the turnaceS emitting under 2.5 Mg arsenic/year also
have control devxc s, and may comply using either method
C Weeds to install controls

-------
—22—
Plants that are believed to have removed arsenic after proposal
and which would be subject to 0.4 Mg arsenic/year emission
limit if arsenic is re—introduced into glass:
1. Americái S emware Corp.
2. Anchor—Hocking, Lancaster, OH -
3. Anchor—Hocking, Clarksburg, OH
4. Anchor—Hocking, Baltimore, MD
5. Corning, Charleroi, PA (Soda—Lime furnace only)
6. Harvey Industries, Clarksburg, WV
7. Wheaton Industries, MillsviJ.].e, NJ
Plants known to have usea arsenic, but which were closed at
last rek.ort:
1. Seneca Glass Company, Morgantown, WV
2. Sloan Glass, Inc., Culloden, WV

-------
—23—
TABLE 2: Compliance Schedules
fabric Filter ES?
Time (days )
Contracts awarded or purchase
orders issued 60 60
FabricatLon 270 360
Shipping 30 30
Installation 240 150
Start—up 40 40
Sampling, analysis, report 90 90
Total 730 730

-------
/13— c(e’zz/

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
CC XENT TITLE LISING FOR Ck . SECTION i .3
(VOLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 113
* PN113—86—01—17—027
ISSUES #3(E) AND #5 OF THE VOC ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS: ESTABLISHING
PROOF OF VOC EMISSIONS VIOLATIONS, AND BUBBLES IN CONSENT DECREES
RESOLVING CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER SECTION 113(b) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-
TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCE2 EN RESPONSE G iJANCE

5T — — ‘———S.—
., • — 4 -. ‘. - — C. : - — — — — - — ... - C. - .- — .‘i h-,. - ‘. — - —
* PN113—S6—04—22—030
TRANSMITTAL OF NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE - ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS OF
CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM DATA
- - S.
:13(d) (4) LETTER TO CAN M TACT REP ,S INsT:TUTE
* FNi— 6— 2—O —232
PGLCY N : A -;A: ::::. , Z —S: ;NT ::c - ::::: : - :: ::s :2;
A? A 2 FCRCEXENT ACT:.:S
* PN1I:—36—De—22—c::
SAMPLE FDERAL REGISTER I O FDP PROPOSAL AND FIN DCO’S
-‘
LETTER T1 : s c’s :;: ? :::G R E2 ENTS
* ‘
— — — — —.— 1-’ ‘ r — —•
‘ — __)__ ‘ 1__. _ - — . — ._ -_ —- - :. _ —__ — — _. - - -. —— -
x PN113—67—J5—27—336
REACTIVATION OF NORANDA LAKESHORE MINES’ RLA PLANT AND PSD REVIEW
* PN113—87—06—25—037
PROPER AND TIMELY REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) REVISIONS
PN113—87—07 —0ô—038
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY - FINAL
* PN113—87—09—11—040
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE: SMALL VOC SOURCE
-- -
* PN113—a7—39—23—O-:
REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEM’TATIO PLA!’ T S AND REVISIONS FOR ENFORCEABILITY
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

-------
Page No. 2
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 113
!“Lt ! 2
* PN113—87—11—23—042
SETTLING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS IN CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
AGAINST STATIONARY SOURCES WHICH WILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE
APPLICABLE ATTAINMENT DATE
* PN113—87—12—31—043
GUIDANCE ON EVALUATING CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT OF STATE
— - - —— — -
:...
—: —
?CZ CY ON co? :: ::- E :c:T:N :7:N 3E TC ZISTN :?‘: ::- :
CCN:RACTOR .:sc:; c ’
* PN113—88—03—02—045
REVISIONS TO VOLATILE HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT (VHAP) CIVIL PENALTY
POLICY

LISTING ASBESTCS DEMCL T C AND RENOVATION COMPANI S PURSLANT TO
SECTION 306 OF E cLEAN AR ACT
* P1:2—— :—:—
TRANSYiITTAL CF CA ? ::;T:P: : coN: CL ?C CY STATEMN’
• l’T111_ r _) 1
£L1..L.. ... .,. .‘ ..
:NS :TTAL o ’ :: : : - ? c:: pc:::
* ?N1 —S2—03—3—’4

—- .....
* P13—!2— E—2C— fC
SEET ::: ::: :3::
* PN113—88—07—05—051
TRANSMITTAL OF S02 CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY

-------
PM 113-88-07-05-051
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, DC ; 20480
- OFF1CIO
JIL. 5 J9Q AIN AND
MEMO R .NDUM
SUBJECV: Transmittal of SO 2 Coriti us Compliance Strategy
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source CQmpl ce Division
Office of Air Quality P anning and Standa de
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxi Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Attathed is the final rsion of the SO 2 Contir .ioua
Compliance Strategy. As you may recall, a draft compliance
strategy for SO 2 sources s distribited for com nt
May 1, 1987. Subsequently a draft SO 2 Contiruious Compliance
Strategy s circulated February 26, 1988. Based on the
comi rtts received on these o dooiments this final strategy
e rged.
The latest Regional revi (February 26th draft) indicated
only nini l thangee re necessary. The decision pint
table used to determine apprcpriate action for noncompliers
has been simplified and additional disoassion has been added
concerning resource allocation proceô . res. Also, the overall
docun nt has been strean lined somewhat and clarified as much
as pDssible.

-------
—2-
As disoissed in the “Introduction”, an approach is
presented for gathering and analyzing SO 2 data in a nationally
consistent aanner to help State/local agencies and Regional
Offices wa decisions about noncompliers. As such, it should
help agencies to allocate scarce res .arces wore effectively.
Please note, that while the strategy i designed to provide
flexibility, any actions taken uust be consistent with all
applicable enforcement guidance. Bob Marshall (F’rS 382—2862)
is SS ’s contact.
Attachment

-------
SO CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
I NTRODUCTIO 1
Thi, strategy provides State/local agencies and EPA
Regional Offices with guidance on making decisions about SO 2
noncompliers. It divides SO 2 violators into t groups.
The first group consists of marginal noncompliers r uiring
additional infor tion before la niching an enforcei nt action.
The second group are sources significantly out of compliance
for which an enforcen nt action should be considered.
Numerical percentages, related to degree of noncompliance are
used to indicate the appropriate type of follow—up action
(See DECISION POINTS AND RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS , p. 4 ).
The strategy is specifically designed not to impose any
additional bardens; rather, its purpose is to ensure consistent,
efficient and effective utilization of existing compliance
resources. Current regulatory rs uirements are used to determine
excess e .ssions , averaging time, nitoring thods and
degree of violation. Pr vioasly issued guidance and standardized
procedures provide an adequate basis for fully implenEnting
this strategy. Specifically, any actions taken should be
consistent with the docunents entitled Timely and Appropriate
Enforcement Response Guidarice which was issued by the Office
of Air and Radiation on April 11, 1986, NEnforcenent Applications
of Contirn.zous Emission Monitoring Data which was issued by
the Stationary Source Compliance Division and the Air Enforcenent
Division on April 22, 1986; and, the OAQPS GEMS Policy
statenerit, which was reissued on March 31, 1988. Copies of
these guidance padcages are contained in the Air Program Policy
and Guidance Noted or may be obtained by contacting the
Stationary Source Compliance Division.
This strategy does not change any der lying emission
standarde or r uir ents. It establishes no rights or
privileges for the regulated sources nor does it change the
definition of a violation. The goal for compliance r ains
at 100 percent. Further, the level of compliance activity
identified by this strategy should be thought of as a
minimally acceptable program. Agencies are encouraged to
implement re rigorous activities as they de appr r3ate.
‘ N
ii Prl 113 16- 0 I- -t O O
( N i’ -BS-o)- ’ —°Y

-------
—2—
APPLICABILITY
This strategy applies to Class P1 02 sources such as;
coal & oil—fired utility and in istrial boilers, smelters.
refineries, steel m].].s, sulfuric acid plants, and pulp
mills whtd!1 a e regulated by SIPs, Na’S or PSD/NSR permits.
DECISION POIN’rS FOR SO NONCOMPLIERS
The data analysis table on page 4 provides r iuterical
decision points and recommended follow—up actions for different
types of compliance problems that may be identified by stack
test reports or self—reporting mechanisms. Stack test
reports, such as Method 6 for NSPS sources, clearly establish
the complilance status of a source in a legally enforceable
form. Therefore, such a violating source should be immediately
ranked using the prioritization scheme described on page 4;
and, an active enforcement action initiated, if apprcçriate.
The three categories of self—monitoring reports submitted
by sources are: 1) reportS from SO 2 contir 1ouB emission
monitoring systems (CEMS), 2) fuel sampling and analysis
reports (FSA), and, 3) other reports, such as malfunction/bypass.
fuel supply or inspection data. Using information from these
reports the percent of noncompliance is computed based on
the length of time in violation. Length of time refers either
to exoirsiOns above the regulatory limit or lack of monitoring
information due to data collection and/or transmission problems
(See page 3). The percent of noncompliance is then con ared
to values in the table and the designated follow—up actions
pursued.
As an example. consider a Subpart Da Electric Utility
steam generator that failed to meet the 1.2 lbs/MN BTU emission
limit for one 24 hr. period (based on a 30 day rolling average).
under the table heading “CEM AND/OR FSA IS THE E7IISSIOL4
COMPLIANCE !€THOD” and subheading “EMISSION L I T EXCEEDED”,
the percent of time is greater than 1% (i.e., 24 hr.! (90
days x 24 hr) 1.1%]. Therefore, the source should be
scheduled for enforcement consistent with the prioritization
scheme developed on page 5. This does not mean art automatic
enforcement action must ensue, but it does place the source
in-line for future actions as resources may permit.

-------
— 3. —
It should be noted that nany of these sources would
qualify as significant violators shcxild any violation be
deterwjn.d to have occurred. Therefore, these decision
points should be used to identify SO 2 significant violators.
Assuming a sot ce iaeets the other criteria for such a
designation, these decision points delineate a degree of
noncompliance that would automtically place a source on the
significant violator list. Additionally, existing guidance
including those addressing federally reportable violations,
timely & apprcpriate enforcement actions and SPMS committments
should be imposed.

-------
— 4• —
D ISICt POI 7rS AND FOIL3’l—UP cria
( .seI on Qiarter ly Data)
‘ If t pe t is.less than that a jn bel , a uisition cf re c ta is
rec r 1s tre oceeding 4th en rceuEnt actions.
If the percent is greater than or eiual to the nni ri 1 a]ue belOt , a
ioritization oced xe sh 1d be us to rark the irtx rtance of the violation
ar I then the c signat 1 enfor rent activity initiates.
DES 1F I24 c i’ VIQLATI D SI £OL T
—
1. STACK TEST
Prooe with e or rit
Enxission Li t cce sI prioriti tion rarüdr .
2. C 1S AND/OR F9 IS 1 4ISSICt 1PLIA fl )D
(LT = Length of Tiu e)
ilSSIct L 11T 1%
ftr rn.iIa: (LT In Vio1ati ’LT of Operation) x lO
S
SSI 4 R L’rIot LL 1%
brnu1a: r nt of t irre riot i eetir euüs ion redL rt ion
r uir nt. Foruiiia: (LT In Viol. /LT of Oper.) * lO(
tP A UISI TICN 4ORI’FPLL KR L G AVEB G hG T €S.
Ebr la: (LT of Data In e uacj/LT of Operation) x 10
-
A UISITI SHOE’ PVEI GDI T S. 5%
F rnu1a: (LT of Data tn& a juacj/LT of Operation) x 1OC*
3. 4S ANDJOR F IS r 4ISSIC J (fllPLIP. fl 3D
(LT = Length of Tim)
SSIci LIflIIT DCCE ED 5%
F r la: (LT In Violatlon/L? of Operation) x l0C*
4ISSIOt R DL TIW R1 7LL 5%
Fbrntila: Per mt of ti r t etir ewjseicn re& tion
r uir nt. r i1a: (LT In VioL. /LT of Oper.) x 1DC*
A UISITIci TP.LL. )R LaG AVERPGflG TD’ S. 5%
F rui. la: (LT of Data In i acy/LT. of operation) z 10(*
1 ’ AC UISIT] 4 TNjLq F R AVE GhG TD€S. 5%
brn*.ila: (LT of Data In uacy/LT of operation) x l0(*
ta Aa uisiticn s rtfall reflects the per nt e of t z a s rce lies data
riot etir the standarda set ‘ the applicable rule (e.g., if data rule rsruires
nitor avaiLa lity 22 of 30 days; then data a uisition slcrtfall is the difference
bet en 22 days ar 1 the lesser nu ber of days actual. ly irovi e1.)

-------
—4a—
4. 4JJtmric.z /ra 1 ‘ :
(LT Langt1 of i )
of
Operatic* )
x
1O
5%
SSI 4 £ ? D E
( c t Cc,psx S 1te s)
Forim.zla: (LT. In Vio]att /LT
nhIssIc LDCT
(Cc per Stt 1tets Or Iy)
F ruu1a: (LT In Vio1aticr fLT of
Operaticn)
x
ioc*
1%

-------
—5—
DATA COLLECTION
For those sources exhibiting performance less than the
indicatd-a o t in the table, collection, of re data is
recomn*ndd. Acquire i re data n ans thesource should be
contact.d to deternitne the specific nature of the apparent
problem and the corrective action taken. Often clarification
of such problens can be achieved throu informal nsans
(e.g., telephone) and additional revi of existing data.
However, if the available data is not useful or conclusive,
then a n re formal nschani is indicated. Formal approaches
include using Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, or similar
state authority, coniicting a n nitor audit or an on—site
inspection. This formal approach should be consistent with the
priorities in the CMS strategy. Should an inspection be the
preferred nschanism, such inspection would be scheduled using
the “Compliance Monitoring Strategy for FY 89.N Once the
data is collected and analyzed, the agency should determine
whether to proceed with an enforcement action.
ENFORCEMENT
The r uirement to initiate enforcement nsans that the
frequency of the violation is great enou that remedial
measures are appr riate. In this case, traditional
enforcen rtt nsasures according to EPA’S current practices
should be implemented.
Due to variois limitations, an EPA Regional Office or
State/local agency may not be able to address all SO 2
noncompliers immediately. Therefore, an enforcei nt
prioritization scheme should be develcped. Since each agency
has unique problens and commitnsnts 4th respect to SO 2 ,
a number of different approaches are permissible.
General considerations for any prioritization scheme
include:
• Air quality
• Nonattainment vs. Attainment status
• Potential emission reductions
• SPPIS commitments
Inclusion of these general factors and their applicability
for prioritizing sources is left to each agency’s discretion.

-------
—6—
Specific factors that can be used to prioritize so 2
sources r uiring remedial. action include:
• SG.lrcecompliance history
• Source’s compliance rate co ared to others
in its category.
• Actual emission rate
• Control technology limitations
• O&M practices
Freuency and ITagnit e of the violations
These specific factors should be woven into the overall
sch e devel ed under the general considerations. Each
agency should formulate it’s own prioritiatiori sche as
soon as practicable.
In addition, s rces designated by the chart on page 4
should be prioritized for inspection consistent with their
ranking under the CMS process. Any sxirces subs uently
inspected and found to be in violation should then be
prioritized for enforc ent action consistent with existing
guidance. The results are, of course, rep rted throu i the
Compliance Data Syste!n.
DATA BASE REQUIREMEN’rS
All data reported on an affected unit shQlld be entered
into the appropriate data system following existing guidance
(i.e., enforc ent actions in CDS and EER data in the CEMS
Subset of CDS). Guidance issued by SSCD on July 9, 1987
on the CEMS &ibset and Attachment B to “Second Quarter FY 88
SPMS Rep rting Instructions for the Stationary Source
Compliance Program”, (March 15, 1988) provide instructions
on the input of unit—specific data, and the infor tion to be
reported thro.igh the CEMS 9ubset.
SUMMARY
A strategy to meintain a high level of SO 2 compliance
must be incorpr rated into each ear1y planning cycle. It is
recognized that res irce limitations effectively prevent an
aggressiv. follow—up to each and every violation. Therefore,
to re efficiently utilize EPA funding, this strategy has
been devised a. a means to prioritize resource expenditures.
In essence, very minor violations r uire only more data
collection rather than immediate enforcement actions. Other
violations are treated in a re traditional fashion.

-------
PM 113-88-06-30-050
I UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH NGTONI D.C. 20410
Ji43
OHICI OP
AI A IO *AOIATIOVS
Er4ORANDU?’1
SUBJECT: Asbestos Contractor List) .P
FROM: John 5. Seitz, Director J
Stationary Source Compl e Division
Office of Air Quality Punning and Standa s
TO: James T. Wilb.irn
Deputy Director
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Region IV
I am writing in response to your April 1, 1988 memo
about the asbestos contractor listing Licj. You raised
the concern that an asbestos cçntractar my not r ain in
violation for long enough to be listed, or may not stay
listed for very long since a contractor can petition for
de—listing upon de nstration of compliance. Ycu pointed
out that most asbestos violations are short lived. Since
other air compliance staff may share your concern, I am
sending cc ies of this response to all, air mnagement
division directors.
We discussed this problem in devel ing the ne asbestos
contractor listing policy. We believe that the s% ’ rt d zation
of most violations will not preclude EPA from using the
contractor listing sanction effectively against those companies
which have repeated violations. Under 40 C.F.R. 15.1.1 EPA
may place a facility on the list i f EPA 0 detar .ries that
there is a record contiri .2ing or recurring noncompliance
with clean air (or ter) standards. • •“ (emphasis added).
If ths tacility violating the 4ESMAP is an asbestos
deu 1ition and renovation (D&R) company, then the facilityw
to be listed is that asbestos D&R company. Contractor Listing
is an appropriate sanction to use against asbestos D&R companies
with a history of several violations over a period of time.

-------
—2—
These violations may be at different de litjon sites, as
long as the same cospany “facility” is responsible for the
vioIatior . J Such a c pany has a ‘ record of rea.arring
noncomp].iance for the purposes of a listing action.
If an asbestos c pany has been placed on the list
in a discretionary listing action and then petitions to be
removed fcc . the List, 15.21 requires the Listing Official
to remove the facility from the list if the Assistant
Administrator has determined that “the condition(s) whith
gave rise to the discretionary listing have been corrected”
or “the facility is on a plan for ccxnpliance whith will
insure that the condition(s) which gave rise to the
discretionary listing will be corrected.” The Office of
Enforcen nt and Compliance nitorirtg has issued a policy
ab .it what constitutes “ correcting the condition giving rise
to listing”.2 /
.
In the case of an asbestos D&R company whith has
repeatedly violated the asbestos t4ESHAP. we would not consider
that the company had demonstrated that it had “corrected the
condition giving rise to the listing” rely r sending
prcper notice on its next ob and/or using prcper work practices
the next ti an inspector visits the site. One day or
moment of compliance is no guarantee that the contractor will
be in compliance the next day or mo nt nor does it g rantea
correction of the conditions giving rise to the listing.
Where there have been rec zring violations in the past, EPA
should require the company to demonstrate that it has taken
adequate steps to enaize that violations do not occ in the
future.
To illustrate this point, consider a power plant that
may have e eated, b. t not continuo.ss, particulate violations.
The compliance provisions of a consent decree for a power
plant mi t require that the company install an ES? or bag—
house and, in addition, require that certain c eration and
r aintenance asures be taken and that quarterly reports of
CEM data be submitted to EPA to demonstrate that the power
plant is now operating in continua.ls compliance with the
standard.
1/ For a r. complete discussion defining asbestos D&R
company facility 1 . see “Defining ‘Violating Facility’ for the
Purpose Listing Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Companies,”
March 11, 1988 at 11—13. t rr, rN Nr ro f J fl 3 S_b3_lI-oVh]
2/ “Policy on Correcting the Condition Giving Rise to Listing
— under the Contractor Listing Program” Attach nt WW to the
Contractor Listing Protocols , October 8, 1987.
C (

-------
—3-
Si ilarly, with an asbestos D&R company, we should
require a rLstration that steps have been taken to ensure
that the systemic problettm which caused recurring violations
have bssDo1’md. Depertd.ing on the partio.il .ar requir enta
of the aá.stos UESM P that the company has been violating,
PA could r üire the asbestos D&R cc parrj to do one or re
of the following:
‘ Institute n i office procedures whid assure that
the required notices are sent out on time. De rnstrate
that this has been done by maintaining records of all
notices which have been sent and agree to an EP audit
of these records.
• Devel or have develcped a written asbestos control
program such as the one in the attached del consent
decree provision II.
• Devel and implement a training program for asbest
D&R workers, and have every worker (including nanagers)
take the training coarse. Keep records of whi workers
have taken the course.
• Demonstrate to EPPi that the c parry has the equipment
needed to comply with the JESMA.P regulations. such as
water tank trucks with hoses and spray equipment and
tal drums for storing and disposing of asbestos.
Attathed is a model consent decree with the Language and
programs we suggest to deucnstrate compliance. If you have
any suggestLorts for improvements, we would welcome th .
A discretionary listing action always has a prerequisite
enforcement action. If the defendant and EPA have agreed to
the terms of a consent decree which incorporates the needed
remedies before the company is listed, the recommending
Regional office may wit iraw the Recommendation to List.
Once a company has been notified of a prcçoeed listing, a
listing action is re lved only by a determination that the
conditions giving rise to the listing have been corrected.

-------
—4—
This d.tsr nation may be based on a certification by the
Regional program office that the facility has taken all.
necessaryI.m.dial. action and is n in compliance, or it my
be based On a signed consent decree whith obligates the company
to take tIES neded remedial action in the future.
I hope this discussion has addressed your concerns. If
y i still have so questions ab .it the asbestos D&R company
listing program, you may kant to talk to Tracy Gipson in the
Contractor Listing Program (FrS 475—8780) or Q arlie Garlow
or Justina Fugh in the Air Enforc ent Division (F’rS 475—7088
or 382—2864).
Attachments
Policy on Correcting the Condition Giving Rise to Listing
under the Contractor Listing Program
Model Consent Decree Provisions
cc: Air and Waste ManagerTent Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division Directors
Regionx IV and VI
Air and Toxi Division Directors
Regions V II, VIII, and X

-------
ATTAC ff NT 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR ThE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
AMALGAMATED PROPERTY OWNERS, ) Civil Action No.
)
INC. and )
)
XYZ DEMOLITiON CONTRACTORS, )
)
INC., )
)
Defendants )
________________________________________________________________________________________ )
CONSENT DECREE
Plaintiff, United States of A ertca, on behalf of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) , having filed a
Complaint alleging vio].aclons of the National ntssion Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NES}iAP”) for asbestos, codified at
40 C.F.R. S61.140 et and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 74O1
ec g.. and requesting permanent injunctive relief and civil
penalties;
And Defendant having duly filed an Answer denying the clai.ms
of the plaintiff; (if appropriate)
And Plaintiff and Defendant having agreed that settlement of
this action La in the public interest and that entry of this
Consent D•c .. without further litigation is the moat appropriate
means of resolving this action and thus avoiding protracted
litigation costs and expenses;

-------
-2-
And- Plaintiff and Defendant having moved this Court to ente
this Consent Decree, subject to the provisions of 28 C.F.R. sso.
NOW THEREFORE, before the taking of any testimony, upon the
pleadings, without adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and
with no finding or admission of liability against or by the
Defendant, and upon consent of the parties to this Consent Decree,
It is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:
I.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action under 28 U.S.C. §S1 331, 1345, and 1355, and 42 U.S.C.
§7413(b) and over the parties conseneing to thts ,Consenc Decree.
Venue is pc.oper in this Court. The Complaint states a claim upon
which relief may be granted against the Defendant.
II.
DEFINITIONS AND PARTIES
A. “Defendants” shall mean An algamated Property Owners,
tnc.. and XYZ Demolition Contractors, Inc.
B. “Plaintiff’ shall mean the United States of America and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
C. terms used in this Consent Decree which are defined in
42 U.S.C. •7412(a), 42 U.S.C. §7602, 40 C.F.R. S61.02, and 40
C.F.R. 561.141 shall have the meanings contained therein.

-------
—3-
D. Defendant Amalga ated Property Owners, tnc. (APO) is a
corporation organized under the Laws of the State of Delaware.
APO owns property in several states. including the facility
identified in the Complaint in this action.
E. Defendant XYZ Demolition Contractors, Inc. (XYZ) is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana.
The company is engaged in the business of demolition throughout
various states including Louisiana. XYZ “operated” the facility
identified in the Complaint in that XYZ performed demolition
activities at the site.
F. Defendants are “persons” within the meaning of Section
302(e) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 57602(e),.
it t.
APPLICABILITY
A. The undersigned representatives of each party to this
Consent Decree certifies that he or she is fully authorized by
each party whoa he or she represents to enter into the terms -a-nd
conditions of this Decree, and to execute and legally bind that
party to it.
B. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to and
be binding upon the Defenda cs, as well as their officers,
directors, agents, servants, employees, successors, and assigns.
and all, persons, firms and corporations having notice of this
Consent Decree and who are, or will be, acting pursuant to this
Consent Decree, or on behalf of, in concert with or in participa-
c on with the Defendant to this action in furtherance of this
Dec ee.

-------
-4-
C. The provisions of this Congen Decree shall apply to al
of Defendant APOs facilities in all states, territories, and
possegsjo of the United States of At eri a.
D. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to all.
of Defendant XYZ’s d oLitions or renovations in all states,
territories, and possessions of the United States of America.
E. Defendants shall condition any and all. contracts for
deruolicions or renovations subject to this Decree during its
effective period on compliance with the terms of this Decree.
Lv.
ALLEGATIONS
A. PlaintIff alleged chat APO hired XYZ to demolish a scotch
cape score at 1000 Main Street in Plain Dealing, Louisiana. The
facility contained in excess of 80 Linear meters of friable
asbestos material as defined in 40 C.F.R. S61.141, and therefort
the demolition operation was subject to the asbestos NESRAP, 40
C.F.R. S61.14Q •
B. Plaintiff alleged chat XYZ commenced demolition of the
facility on or about March 17, 1987, without either Defendant
having submitted notice of the operation to EPA. in violation of
‘-0 C.F.R. S61.146. Plaintiff further alleged chat the Defendants
failed to comply with cercaLn work practice requirements set
forth in 40 C.F.S 61.147 and 61.152.

-------
—5—
V.
COt LIA 4CE PROGRAM
A. Difendants shall comply with the requirements of the
National isston Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESH p)
for asbestos in 40 C.F.R S61 .140 et Defendants shall submit
written notification for d olttion or renovation operations to
be posc arked or delivered at least ten (10) days before each
de olicion or renovation begins if the amount of asbestos is as
stated In 40 C.F.R S61 .145(a) , or at least twenty (20) days before
each de olition or renovation begins if the a1nour t of asbestos is
as stated in 40 C.F.R. S61.145(b).
B. It the case of an emergency renovation as defined in 40
C.F.R. S61 .141 , Defendants shall provide written notice to the
appropriate EPA regional office and the appropriate delegated
state or local air polLution control agency as early as possible
prior to the commencenenc of any renovation operation involving
asbestos. (Optional)
C. Defendant XYZ shall, on and after the date of entry of
the Consent Decree, implement the office procedure set forth as
Actach ent I to this Consent Decree to ensure compliance with the
notice requirements for de noLition and renovation operations
subject to the asbestos regulations, and shall use the notification
format set forth as Attachments 2 and 3 to comply with this
Consent Decree. Opttonal, but suggested if there have been
notice violations.)
D. ALL notifications required by this Consent Decree shall.
be sent by certified mall, or hand delivery to the appropriate EPA
Regional office and the appropriate delegated state or local air
pollution control agency. Defendants shall maintain records of
said notifications together with proof of mailing by certified
nail for the duration of this Decree.

-------
-6-
E. This Consent Decree in no way affects the Defendant’s
responsibL].tty to comply with any State, Federal. or local. Laws
regulations or any Order by the Court. including compliance wit
all. applicable NESKAPS requirements, and enforc ent of any such
NESHAP requirements made applicable by reason of any revision of
the Clean Air Act and its impl.ementi.ng regulations.
(Optional provisions. Sections It (Notification) , III
(Asbestos Control Progr ) , and IV (Asbestos Training Progr ) of
the Ceppert decree, attached, are recommended as targets for
settlement with contractors where appropriate, such as multiple
violations or situations in which the contractor has a large
number of work crews and .nadequace centralized management of
them.)
Vt
CIVIL PENALTY
Defendants shall pay a total ci.vil penalty ( penalty in ac
w .th penalty policy ) . Said payment shall, be in full satLsfac: .on
of Plaintiff’s claims alleged in Lhe Complaint in this action.
Pay ent shalL be made by cashier’s or certi.fled check payable to
“Treasurer of the United States of America” and tendered wLthLn
30 days after finaL entry of this Decree to the United States
Ac:orney for the Middle Distr c of Louisiana. (Address] . Defen-
dants shall. send a copy of the check :0 the Office of Regional
Cou:.sel. (Address] , and to the Land and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Depareflt of Justice (Address). Civil penalty payments
under this decree are not tax deductLble.
(Optional provisions. S ccLo1s Vt.B. VI.C, VII I, and IX of
the ?C&J decree, attached, are recor ended if it is necessary :o
provide for an Lnscallment schedule for payment of c vtl pen .i.e
parcicuLarl.y if there .s any c . ern about the solvency of t
ieEendanC. I

-------
—7—
VU.
CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION
(OpcLonal provision. Section VII of the PC&J decree,
attached, may be a useful negotiating tool against contractors
which do buethese with the Federal government. However, the
Office of Inspector General, Suspension and Debarment Branch (FTS
475-8960) should be consulted prior Co making any commitments
regarding suspension or debarment proceedinga.1
Vt I I.
STI PULATED PENALTI ES
(Applicable to items other than violations of the regulations,
such as the training progr or a sbestos control.. prograzt in
Gepper: dec ree.J
A. Defendant XYZ shall pay stipulated penalties of 51 .000
per day for each day of noncompliance with any provision of
Sections ____ of this Consent Decree.
3. All payi ents of stipulated penalties shall. be made within
thirty (30) days of the date of noncompliance by cashiers’s or
certified check made payabl.e to the “Treasurer of the United
States” and mailed to the United States Attorney for the Middle
District of Louisiana. A copy of the letter forwarding such
check, together with a brief description of the noncompliance,
shall be at]ed to the Office of Regional Counsel, EP.A Region Vt.,
and to the Land and Natural Sesources Division, U.S. Deparo ent
of Justice.

-------
-8-
C. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent
or lLrnit the rtghcs of the plaintiff to obtain any other remedy,
sanction, Or r.lief which may be available to it by virtue of
Defendant’s failure to comply with this Consent Decree, the Clean
Air Ace, or the asbestos NESHAP.
Ix.
FORCE MA.JEURE
(Optional - may be inserted t denanded by Defendants. Section
IX of the Geppert decree, attached, is recommended.]
x.
TERMINATION
This Consent Decree shall cer’ l:iate 3 years from the date of
its entry, provided the Defendant has complied with its tet, s.
The United States shall have the right to seek extension of thi
period in the event of any violation of the Decree. The Court
will retain jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the provisions
of this Decree.
XI.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Each party consents to entry of this Consent Decree, subject
to the public notice and comment requirements of 28 C.F.R. 5O.7.
X II.
COSTS
Each party shall, bear its own costs.

-------
-9-
For Plaintiff - United States of America:
_____________________________ Dated:
F. WENRY RABICHT It
Assistant Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
United States Depart enc of .Juscice
_______________________________ Dated:
THOMAS I .. ADAMS. JR.
Assistant Admin stracor for
Enforc ent and Compl.iance Monitoring
United States Eriviron enta1 Protection
Agy
______________________________ Dated:
Assistant United States Attorney
Middl.e District of Louisiana
Dated:
Trial. Attorney
Lafld and atural. Resources Division
Environmental. Enforcement Section
United States Depar uent of Justice
_______________________________ Dated:
For Defendant X’fZ De o1ttion
Contractors, Inc.
Dated:
For Defendant Amal.gainaced Property
Owners, It ’ c.

-------
-TO-
ENTRY OF THE.COURT
Judg iflt entered in accordance with the foregoing Consent
Decree this ____ day of ____________ . 98 ?.
BY THE COURT:
United States Dist tct
Judge

-------
PN 113-88-03—31-049
, 1 *D 4,
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
b 4 I
R3H986
Ai AND L&DIAT1ON
MEMORANDUM
SUBJEcr: Implementation of Rule Effe iveness Stu ies
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Complia ivision
Office of Air Quality Plan ing and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxi Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxi Division Directors
Regions ‘fit, VIII and X
This morandum transmits the final rule effectiveness
protocol ar d requests that you implement the protocol beginning
in F? 89 in your region.
The protocol is the result of several onths of devel ment
through discussions with meny regional, state and local air
pollution control personnel and incorporates the study concepts
and procedures that are being used successfully in Region IX
and California.
As many of you are aware, we initially prcposed this
procedure as a part of the ozone strategy and it was to be
used in large part as the rebuttal for an eighty percent
effectiveness for all new ozone SIPs. However, we have made

-------
—2—
the decision to implement this protocol independent of the
ozone str t.gy because of the general applicability of the
procedur nd the protocol’s usefulness as a logical follow
on to th anning and implementation process of any SIP.
I am requesting that each region commit to at least one
rule effectiveness evaluation in an ozone non—attainment area
for FY 89. The FY 89 regional stationary source budget
allocates 15 rr for 12 evaluations. In addition we earmarked
Section 105 monies for the state’s use in participation of
these studies.
We have not identified a rule or
evaluation, however, we do recommend
of the SIP in the nonattainment area
problems or contributes at least 5%
of the SIP strategy. I urge you to
states to identify that part of the
potential payback.
category of sources for
that you select a part
that either has suspected
of the emission reductions
work closely with your
program with the highest
Lastly, I direct your attention to the national overview
section on page three of the protocol. Please forward your
proposed final protocol to the national overview manager for
comment before going final with a specific study and feel
free to consult the manager as questions or issues arise
during development of a final study.
Attachment
cc: Jerry Emison
John Calcagni
Air Branch Chiefs

-------
March 24, 1988
Rule EffeCtiVSflS Study protocol
(1) PurpOse and Goals
The purpose of this protocol is to provide the States and EPA with criteria
and procedures for conducting a rule .ffectiveflel$ study. In th. context of
this protocol, rute effectiveness means the extent to which a rule actually
achieves (or has the capability of achieving) desired emission reductions, both
in terms of the reductions projected for that rule, as well as the reductions
that would ordinarily be achieved if the rule were properly implemented.
Principal goals of a rule effectiveness study conducted according to this
protocol are: (1) to determine the effectiveness of rules for a specific source
category in a specific nonattainment area according to th. quantitative criteria
set forth in this protocol, and (2) to identify specific implementation problems
that should be addressed by the State and EPA to achieve greater rule effective
ness in the future.
(2) Application
A State or EPA may use this protocol at its own initiative to evaluate a
rule, and to take or require corrective action based on that evaluation. If a
State wishes to claim new emissions reduction credits in its SIP based upon
corrective action in response to a rule effectiveness study, these credits must
first be verified in a subsequent study.
This protocol may not be used to justify a relaxation of minimum program
implementation requirements (including, for example, the frequency and quality
of inspections timely enforcement, and the correct application of rules through
testing, permitting and other source specific determinations).
(3) General Approach
Any rule effectiveness study conducted by the State or EPA must be conduct
ed in accordance with the previsions of this protocol.
Each study ‘will occur in two phases: a field inspection phase. in which
inspections ars iducted (after a selective file review) and compliance deter-
minations are e (to the extent possible) for a representative sample of
sources in a nonattiinmer%t area; and an office investigation phase in which
further analysis is undertaken of program implementation elements that are not
susceptible to comprehensive evaluation in a field inspection study.
Field inspections will be used to calculate or measure emissions at sources
included in th. sample end to determine the percentage effectiveness of the
regulations involved by comparing the actual to the allowable emissions at each
source. A separate proqram effectiveness determination will also be made by
comparing the State’s projected reductions for the source category to the
reductions actually achieved. -

-------
Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
March 24, 1988
Page 2
P fo11ow—up ffice j vestigation will supplement field inspections for the
purpose of identifying specific program implementation problems that should be
addressed by the State and/or EPA. Th. following potential program problem -
areas will, be .valuat .d in both phases of the study: regulatory standards,
regulation enforceabilitY, permits, variances, inspection procedures . compliance
determinations, enforcement procedures. source and emissions inventories source
files and data management, training, and agency resources management.
This protocol r.quires that detailed criteria and procedures be developed
for conducting each area of evaluation. Example checklists and guidelines for
developing these criteria and procedures are included as attachments to the
protocol. All detailed criteria and procedures developed as a part of a speci-
fic study will be incorporated in the protocol.
(4) Coordination between the State and EPA
Whenever the State or EPA has decided to conduct a rule effectiveness
study . the following coordination shall occur.
(a) Opportunity to Participate
An opportunity to participate in the study shall be given to all non-
initiating agencies with jurisdiction over the nonattainment area.
(b) Preliminary Notice and Meeting
The initiating agency shall notify other affected agencies of the decision
to conduct the study and identify the purpose of the study, the source cate-
gory(s) and rule(s) affected, and the anticipated study schedule. At the
election of any affected agency . a preliminary management level meeting may be
called to discuss the study.
(c) Final Protocol Preparati.ort and Review
1. Preparation of Proposed Final protocol
Whenever a rul, effectiveness study will be conducted by the State or EPA,
the ,nitiatiztg qemcy shall prepare and submit to the other agency(s) for prior
review a propo final protocol including the detailed procedures and criteria
that w ,ll be f d when conducting the study. These criteria and procedures
shall address element of this protocol and shall incorporate, at a
the criteria and procedures included in Attachments A-C. which may be modified
as necessary to incorporate unique considerations that apply to th. specific
State.
The reviewing agency shall review and respond to the proposed final proto-
col within two weeks of its rece .pt. In the response. the reviewing agency
shall indicate all areas of disagreement or areas warranting clarification and
specify areas where the proposed criteria and procedures are cwsid.red defec
t ,ve. The initiating agency should then confer with the reviewing agencY to
resolve all areas of potential disagreement and take appropriate corrective
steps to ensure the validity c i the study.

-------
Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
March 24, 1988
Page 3
2. i %$l OverviiW
Rule etf.ctivsness study overview will be conducted by the Compliance
Monitoring Branch of EPA’s Stationary Source Compliance Division. The overview
objective vii ]. be to pro tS rule effectiveness study quality and consistency on
a national level through protocol review and coiim ent.
Following the completion of a proposed final protocol (including all
revisions resulting from prior review), the initiating agsncy shall forward the
protocol to the National Rule Effectiveness Study Overview Manager. The Over-
view Manager will provide written cou ents, if any, within two weeks of receipt
of the proposed final protocol. He will also forward the protocol to selected
State and EPA r.vi.wers, who based on their experi.nce and knowledge may also
provide additional verbal or written coentS.
Correspondence concerning national overview should be addressed to the
National Rule Effectiveness Study Overview Manager, Stationary Source Compliance
Division (EN—34l), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C., 20460.
3. Final Protocol
The initiating agency is responsible for the development of a final proto-
col that ensures the validity of a rule effectiveness study.
A State’s failure to correct protocol deficiencies identified during
protocol review may restrict the use of study results as support for emission
reduction credits. Likewise, EPA’s failure to correct protocol deficiencies may
restrict the use of study results as a justification for requiring corrective
action by the State.
A protocol may be revised or amended during a study by agreement of the
initiating and reviewing agencies. Following adoption by the initiating agency,
a copy of the final protocol. and any revisions or amendments, shall be for-
warded to the National Rule Effectiveness Study Overview Manager.
Cd) Additional Areas Requiring Prior Coordination and Review
The follavthq areas in addition to those indicated in subparagraph 4(c),
require coordi tiOn and review prior to initiating the study.
1. Study Team Identified . The initiating agency shall identify its
study team, andlrovide a description of th. background and qualifications of
the lead investigator; th. sp.cific inspectors included in the study shall also
be identified.
2. All. Regulations and Policies Identified . Ml rogulatiOfls and
policies affecting the study should be identified and clearly d.fined in terms
of their applicability to sources included in the study. For example, all
express or implied exemptions should be specifically indicated; compliance test
procedures should also be specified along with applicable averaging times, and

-------
Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
March 24, 1988
Page 4
all limitations .cting source compliance. In addition, all legal require-
ment. limiting ction and enforcement activities should be specified.
3. Sonrc.. !d.ntifisd . Sources selected for th. field study shall
be named, arid the reviewing agency shall be given an opportunity to propose
further sample stratification to ensure that th. sample is repr.s.ntativ..
Ce) Conflict Resolution
1. During the Investigation
If a conflict occurs during the study regarding the interpretation of
agency policies, regulation requirements inspection procedures. c. .a liancs
determination criteria, file data, and similar matters, the issue shall be
iediately raised to EPA and State managers for resolution. If the conflict
must be resolved to complete a specific investigation, the specific investiga-
tion shall stop until agreement between the State end EPA is reached. In such a
case EPA and State managers shall meet to resolve the conflict within 48 hours.
If after 48 hours the conflict is still unresolved, th. conflict shall be
presented for resolution to the highest level agency managers with direct
program implementation responsibility (the EPA Regional A inustrator and the
State Department Director).
2. After the Investigation
If an unresolvable study team conflict occurs after completion of the
invest gation phase regarding specific findings and conclusions, and the con-
flict affects the final percentage effectiveness determination, the conflict
-shall be in one of t manners: (1) EPA and Stats managers may resolve
the issue by agreement, without further evaluaeion or (2) the study team may
conduct an additional evaluation to resolve the conflict.
CS) Study Teem Selection
The study team may include members of the local, State arid Regional agen-
cies with urisdiction over the specific nonattainment area. However, the t.am
shall include a lied technical investigator, who will be responsible for al]
technical finding.. To th. extent possible, the lead technical investigator
s iould have no urit responsibility for inspecting sources included in the
study.
4-
The lead investigator shall be highly skilled and experienced in the imple-
mentation of th. ils selected for study. Qualifications shall include the
capability to conduct all levels of inspection and compliance analysis, includ-
ing the ability to conduct emissions testing. Qualifications shall also include
significant, recent field inspection experience for all or most types of facili-
ties subject to th. regulation, and should include enforcement case development
experience.
To ensure an effectiv, evaluation of the State’s field inspection proce-
dures, the study team should include the inspector normally responsible for in-
specting each source selected as a part of the field study.

-------
Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
March 24, 1988
Page 5
(6) Source Cat’i’4Y Salection
An agency may select any sOurce category for a rule effectiveness evalua-
tion using this protocol. If an agency wishes to study a limited number of
source categories to support a.SIP call, SIP revision, or other agency action
related to a need for additional ‘ I CC reductions, th. selection of these cate-
gories should be based on the following criteria:
o categories representing the largest quantities of emission credits in
the existing SIP.
o Categories where known or suspected implamentation deficiencies are
correctable and will provide significant emission reductions.
o Categories where implementation deficiencies are identifiable and
measurable with a reasonable co itment of agency resources based on
the study approach selected.
o Categories where study findings will be transferrable to other similar
categOr3e$.
(7) Source Selection
The following source selection procedure is intended to ensure that a
representative sample of sources is selected for the purpose of quantifying the
percentage effectiveness of specific regulations.
(a) Sample Selection
Utilizing the best available source inventory for the selected category,
select a sample of sources that is representative for the category, unless a
representative sample cannot be obtained. In the latter case, select all
sources in the inventory. See Attachment A. This selection will be used for
the purpose of quantifying em .ssions and calculating a percentage effectiveness.
(b) Sampis R.view
Review the sc rce sample prior to initiation of the study to determine
whether major prcblemi throughout the source category have been excluded from
consideration. If so, redesign the sampling procedure to include the additional
stratification required to ensure appropriate consideration of major problem
areas. In such a case, the initiating and reviewing agencies should agree on
the modified selection procedure. see Attachment A.
(8) Preliminary Ti].. Review
The study team should collect and review all relevant State and EPA regula-
tory information relating to sources included in the sample. This includes all
regulations, permits, variances, enforcement agreements, etc. that establish
specific requirements. The study team should also collect and review all State
and EPA regulation interpretation guidelines that apply to each source, as well

-------
Rule Effective e• Study Protocol
March 24, 1988
Page 6
as procedures a poLiciee governing inspections, compliance testing, and
enforcement.
(9) Field Inspection Phase
Each source included in the sample will be inspected by the Study Team. If
conditions at the source prevent an inspection during normal operating ,
this should be noted in the inspection report, but the best inspection that is
reasonable under the circumstances should occur in any case.
All inspections should be unannounced and designed to apprshsnd ongoing viola-
tions (especially those susceptible to operator control during an inspection).
Exceptions may be justified to ensure that a source is operating. to allow for
necessary preparation at the source, to ensure that key plant personnel or records
will be available, etc. In such a case, prior ceunication with the source should
be made as close in time as possible to the actual inspection.
During the field inspections, the study team shall conduct the following
evaluations.
(a) Rule Application Evaluation
1. Deviations from State Requirements
The team shall determine whether the State regulatory requirements that shoul
apply to a facility do in fact apply, or whether they have been applied in a manne
that results in less or greater than the anticipated control.
2. Deviations from Federal Guidelines
Where the State requirement is different from the Federal guideline (where,
for example, the State requirement is more stringent, or the State interprets its
requirement so that it is less stri ngent than EPA’S interpretation), the team shall
also determine the extent to which the State requirement. as applied, results in
less or greater than the control that would be achieved if the Federal guideline
applied.
(b) StatsjlniPection Procedures Evaluati
:nspectore’sho ald be asked to conduct a normal inspection, or if a normal
inspection would not be adequate for the study, to describe how the inspection is
normally conducted at each facility. The lead investigator will observe the
inspection, but take the necessary steps to ensure that th. inspection is adequate
to achieve the field inspection study ob3ectives.
The team shall determine whether the normal State inspection procedures are
adequate to identify actual or potential violations. Specific failures should be
documented and evaluated in terms of potential excess emissions. Failures reLated
to faulty agency guidelines or policies, faulty rules, or faulty procedures con-
ducted at a specific site should be clearly differentiated.

-------
Pule Effectiv 0 g 5 Study Protocol
March 24, 1988
Page 7
(c) Co l cs Determinations
The study team shall determine the compliance status of the facility with the
SIP, differentiating between procedural requirements and emission requirements. If
the SIP is inconsistent with Federal policy en SIP content, the study team shall
also d.termine whether the facility would be in complianc, if th. SIP wore consis-
toot with Federal policy.
Each SIP violation shall be separately identified and doci snt.d. Tb. study
team may use its discretion in conducting or requiring stack tsting, however, a
decision not to require stack testing (where relevant) shell be clearly supported
in each inspection report.
(d) issions Quantification
The actual and allowable emissions shall be calculated (to the extent pos-
sible) for all sources inspected during the study, according to the detail-
ed criteria and procedures reflected in the final study protocol. Allowable
emissions shall be defined by the SIP. If the SIP is inconsistent with Federal
policy on SIP content, the study team shall also calculate the emissions that uld
be allowable if the SIP were consistent with Federal policy.
If the study team wishes to identify other reducible emissions for the purpose
of documenting potential additional emission reduction credits, these emissions
shall also be calculated according to th. procedures reflected in the final study
protocol, and shall be clearly supported by field inspection results.
(e) Quality Assurance
Effective quality assurance procedures shall be observed in all emissions
calculation and measurement related activities and shall be included as a part of
the detailed criteria and procedures included in the final protocol.
(f) Inventory Evaluation
Operating and emissions data in the EPA and State source/emission inventories
shall be verified by an actual, on-site investigation, and discrepancies shall be
clearly identified. Discrepancies affecting the State’s attainment strategy shall
also be clearly j ’ 4 cated.
(10) Office Investigation Phase
(a) Follow-up to i ield Investigations
Deficiencies identified in the field that are related to agency procedures and
policies should be confirmed by an office review of the appropriate written docu-
ments and by interviews with agency managers responsible for the dvelopment and
mplementation of the procedures and policies.
(b) Minimum Program Implementation Requirements
The detailed criteria and procedures included in the final protocol shall
address EPA’s minimum program implementation requirements. Where continuing

-------
Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
March 24, 1988
Page 8
deficiencies a ir 1 entifi.d, specific corrective measures shall be proposed in the
final study r.p t.
If EPA initiates the study, EPA may elect to rely on th. most recent National
Air Audit as a basis for identifying program implea.ntation deficiencies. If the
Stat. conducts the study, the State may propose to rely on the most recent National
Air Audit. However, EPA may elect, instead, to conduct a nsv audit; and if EPA so
elects, the latter audit will be controlling.
The Stat. may use this study, if the results so indicate, as support for
proposing the modification of EPA minimum program implementation requirements
applicable to that State and submit a proposal to that effect as a part of the
study report.
It is essential that a State meet minimum EPA program implementation require-
ments whether or not additional emission reduction credits are justified based on
the results of a field study conducted pursuant to this protocol.
(11) Inventory Accuracy Demonstration
An inventory accuracy demonstration for the selected source category shall be
conducted as a part of the rule effectiveness study. This demonstration shall
include the following elements:
(a) Field Investigation Follow—up
Where the field investigation resulted in inventory discrepancies, the State
shall take the following actions.
1. Reconciliation
Reconcile the individual discrepancies and, if appropriate, revise the emis-
sions inventory to reflect this reconciliation.
2. Representativeness Evaluation
Determine ether the discrepancies represent a more extensive problem with
the inventory other sources not included in the sample. If so, take one of the
following corr. t.tve actions:
o identify and resolve each individual source discrepancy, or
o adjust the inventory baseline and revise the SIP in accordance with EPA
guidelines to reflect the reconciliation, ass inq that the discrepancies
are representative of the entire source category.
(b) Search for Potentially Omitted Sources
1. Survey of Exempt Sources
Conduct a letter survey ot exempt sources to determine whether the grounds for
exemption still apply. For a large source category, an initial survey may be

-------
Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
March 24. 1988
Page 9
conducted for a 11 s 1e of th. sources. If the response indicates a need for
general agency fs12 —up C . exemptions axe unwarranted in other than an un-
usual, isolated case), a complete survey of all sxempt source. shall be undertaken.
2. Ground Survy
Conduct a ground survey in a sample grid of th. study area to dst.rmirte
whether unregistered sources exist.
3. Other Measures
Conduct a comparison of alternative source lists and take other appropriate
steps to determine whether unidentified source. or emissions exist.
4. Results
If the ground survey sample indicates that one percent or more of the real
emissions have been omitted from the inventory base for that area, the State shall
increase th. entire inventory baseline by the percentage identified and revise the
SIP in accordance with EPA guidelines. All new emissions identified by the letter
survey of exempt sources, the ground survey, and other measures shall be included
in the State’s emissions inventory.
(12) Corrective Action
(a) Minimum Program Implementation Requirements
Where the study identifies implementation problems that are inconsist iit with
EPA minimum program implementation requirements. the problems shal l. be corrected
whether or not they may result in additional emission reductions.
(b) Correctable Problems
The study team should determine and identify which problems are clearly
correctable, and propose feasible corrective action options, with co ents on the
advantages and disadvantages of each option. Specific consideration should be
given to th. relative costs and benefits of each option to the agency. Specific
consideration s l4 also be given to options requiring the adoption of more
effective contXQ requirements. and to regulation changes that will alleviate
compliance moni tng and enforcement constraints (for example. improved record
keeping and reporting requirements).
The study team should calculate the emissions reduction that can be achieved
by the reco ended corrective action, if possible and stat. the assumptions upon
which this calculation ii based.
Cc) Uncorrectable Problems/Correcta bilitY UTtknOWn
If problems are known not to be correctabl , or if the corr.ctabilitY of a
problem cannot be determined, this should be clearly indicated along with the basis
for that determination.

-------
Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
March 24, 1988
Page 10
(d) Study 1owM1
me study shall include a planmed follow-up audit within one year after its
completion to determine if corrective actions were implemented and whether the
actions issulted ifl th imptovemflts antiCi ftted.
(13) Reports
(a) Inspection St1fi ry Report
A separate .i.tary report shall be completed for each source inspection. This
report should include a su eiary of specific findings and recoimendations, and all
compliance or emissions calculations with supporting data. See Attachment F.
(b) Final Study Report
A final study report shall be completed which identifies the percentage
effectiveness of each regulation evaluated in the study, and which describes all
source compliance and agency implementation problems that were identified, whether
they are correctable or net, the proposed corrective action, any other required or
proposed program implementation improvements 1 a s ry of reasons for why othez
problems are not (or may net) be correctable, and a sus ary of reducible am .t si s
associated with specific corrective action and other implementation improvements.
The final study report ehall also include the schedule for a planned follow—up
audit. See Attachment G.
Any deviations from the study protocol should be identified and explained in
the final study recrt
Members of the study team may provide nonconcurrirtg opinions which will be
included as an attachment to the report.
Attachments
Attachment A: Source Inspection Selection Procedures
Attachment B: ple rield Inspection Procedure Checklists —— Graphic Arts
Attachment C: pl. Compliance Determination and iuioni Calculation
cklista -- Graphic Arts
Attachment 0: Percentage Effectiveness Calculation Guideline
Attachment E: Minimum Program tmplem.ntatiofl Requirements
Attachment F: Example Inspection Si1 ry Report Checklist —- Graphic Arts
Attachment C: Example Final Study Report Outline

-------
March 24, 1988
Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
SU?Q ARY OF ATTACW1ENTS ii
‘u’ E 6,’ ,1c J
Attachment As Source Inspection Selection Procedures
This attachment describes procedure. for selecting a statistically r.pr.-
sentativ. sample of sources in each cat.gory. It is expected as a part of the
final protocol development and r.view process that the initiating and r.vieving
agencies will agree on the final selection as “repres.ntativ. for the purposes
of each study.
Attachment B: Example Field Inspection Procedure Checklists —— Graphic Arts
This attachment provides checklists for use by a lead investigator in
evaluating the adequacy of inspection procedures at facilities covered by CTG’s.
In addition to outlining compliance evaluation checks the checklists also
provide for an evaluation of agency source files, previous regulation applica-
bility determinations, •xemption status, inventory adequacy, and other deter-
minations useful to the overall study.
Attachment C: Example Compliance Determination and issions Calculation
Checklists -— Graphic Arts
This attachment simmarizes accepted EPA methods for measuring emissions and
determining complianc, for the graphic arts CTG categories as an example to be
followed in protocols for other source categories. Only compliance test methods
approved as part of a SIP or promulgated by EPA may be used to measure emissions
and determine compliance status as part of a rul, effectiveness study. These
methods should be clearly identified prior to initiating any field investiga-
tions and should be incorporated within the final study protocol.
Attachment D: ,rc.ntage Effectiveness Calculation Guideline
This 4tta.r .lLnt outlines the procedure and assumptions for calculating the
overall percent effectiveness of a rule as a result of a rule effectiveness
study conducted pursuant to th, s protocol.
Attachment E: Minimum Program Implementation Requirements
This attachment provides guidance on how to identify relevant EPA minimum
program implementation requirements for purposes of a rule effectiveness study.

-------
si .ry of Attachaents
March 24 1988
Pag• 2
Attac Sflt F: ! lI 1s Inap.ctien Sw’—’ ry R.port Cb.ckliat -- Graphic Arts
This attacb isflt providsi sr i outlin. of th. report for each inspection
ce d cted during th. study. The graphic arts category is used for illustration.
Attachment C: Example Final Study Report Outlirt•
This attachment provides a generic outline of a final rule effectiveness
atudy report.

-------
PN 113-88-03-31-048
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 L ipicti
2 1 M 1938 Ofl’CE O
AI A 4O AOlATIOF .4
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECr: Transmittal of Reissued
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Direc
Office of Air Quality
TO: Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III and IX
Air, Pesticides and Toxi Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxjcs Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Attached is the OAQPS policy on Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) data. This policy was originally
issued on July 28, 1987. However, because of the late
transmittal date, F’f 1988 implementation of the policy was
done voluntarily. The policy, after minor streamlining, is
being reissued at thia time to insure implementation during
FY 1989. It has been streamlined ‘ removing the outdated
section called Future Actions.
In accordance with the Operating Year Plan. FTEs and
LOE contract funds have been allocated to the Regional Offices
for CEMS and compliance nitoring activities. Implementation
of this strategy should help you utilize these available resources
more efficiently and effectively.

-------
—2—
Furth.r re, note that tracking SO 2 CEMS requirements is
an element of the FY 1989 strategic Planning and Management
System (SPMS). The FY 1989 SPMS requires determination and
reporting of the compliance status of SO 2 sources subject to
CEMS requirements. Specifically these sources are to be
identified, and their compliance status determined with
respect to CEMS installation, certification, report submission
and emission limits. While SO 2 sQ.lrces are emphasized in
SPMS, this measure should be carried out for all sources with
CEMS requirements.
If you wish to discuss this further, please contact me or
Louis Paley of SSCD at rrs 382—2835.
Attathme nt
cc: John Calcagni. AQMD
Jack R. Farmer, ESD
William Laxton, TSD
Don R. Clay, c R
Bruce Armstrong. OPAR
Paul M. Sto1pi an, OPAR
Michael S. Alushin, AED
Alan W. Eckert, OGC
CEMS Technical Coordinators

-------
, itO $T1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
“4L
3 1 MIR 1988
o,nc! c c
Aift AND IADIAT1ON
SUBJECr: CEMS Policy
APPROVED: Gerald A. Emi son, Direct
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TE:
Purpose
This states the OAQPS policy, which is effective
immediately, on the use of Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems (CEMS) data and provides specific guidance as to how
that policy should be implemented.
Definition
CEllS is one of several self—monitoring te niques used
by regulatory agencies to monitor continuous compliance of
sources. Sampling and analysis of sulfur in fuel to assess
SO 2 compliance of sources and recordkeeping for assessment of
compliance with volatile organic compound (VOC) emission
limitations are two other self—monitoring techniques.
Information
As the air compliance program resolves initial compliance
probleme and sources install control equipment, efforts to
assure continuous compliance become increasingly important.
Based on the review of State and Regional programs that
promote the use of CEllS, OAQPS has found that CEMS is a
valuable tool for assuring continuous compliance.
Self-monitoring teätniques should be integrated into the air
compliance program as a means of assessing stationary source
continuous compliance with air quality regulations.

-------
—2—
Some of the States which effectively use CEMS data in
compliance onitoring and in supplementing or supporting
enforcement actions are Washington (with SO 2 and total reduced
sulfur data) and Tennessee (with acity nitoring data).
Ohio has a ccmprehetisive program for requiring CEMS in
operating permits which has resulted in installation of CD4S
on a wide variety of source types. Pennsylvania and Indiana
have highly structured CEMS programs, including penalty
programs based on reported excess emissionS.
Policy
OAQPS is committed to promoting, encouraging and utilizing
CEMS data as a compliance assessment measure. Our Office is
also committed to the use of CEMS in direct enforcement where
CEMS is the compliance test method and for supporting enforcement
where CEMS is not the compliance test method. OAQPS encourages
the use of CD4S data by States in compliance nitoriflg and
in supplementing or supporting enforcement actions. If it is
technically feasible, CEMS requirements should be incorporated
into NSR preconstruct ion revie4s, operating permits and
resolutions of enforcement actions including consent decrees
and administrative orders.
CDIS should be used to assure continuous compliance of
sources in both attainment and nonattaiflitlent areas. Resources
should be allocated tO mnitor continuous compliance of
sources in areas where the greatest environmental benefit is
likely to occur. Therefore, priority should be given to
-NESHAPS sc ..ca3 subject to continuous nitorirLg requirements
(currently 4O CFR 61, subparts F, N, 0 and V) and to SIP
(including major and minor NSR sources) and NSPS sources in
nonattaiflment areas (for the pollutant for which the area is
in nonattainment). Next, CEMS should be used to ucnitor the
continuous compliance of NSPS and PSD sources in attainment
areas. Sources with excessive emission limit excursions
identified by CD4S data should be targeted for foll —up
action (on—5ite inspection or §114 letter). * ere CEMS is
the compliance test method, CEMS data should be used to identify
significant violators. These sources will then be tracked in
accordance with the Timely and pprc riate Enforcement
Response Guidance, issued by O R on April 11, 1986.
There are two different types of CEMS data — direct
compliance nitorir data and excess emissions nitOrir 3 data.
Where CEMS is the compliance test method, the status of the
source is established and documented by CEllS data. Compliance
status determizT d by CEMS data should be coded in the Compliance

-------
—3—
ta System (CDS). Violations identified by direct compliance
monitoring data require appropriate enforcement action
including the assessment of penalties. There are plans to
modify the CDI 9abset of CDS to all i for entry of direct
compliance nitoring data. Use of C 24S data for direct
enforcement where CEMS is the compliance test method is
discussed in NGuidance Enforcement Applications of Continuous
Emission Monitoring Syst Data, issued ‘ OAQPS and OECM on
April 22, 1986.
The second type of CEMS data is where CEMS is not the
compliance method. tn these cases, CEMS data should be used
to nitor the contiriious compliance of sources and to initiate
‘follow-up action including on—site inspections, requesting
further information, and issuing a notice of violation. This
application is also discussed in the aforementioned guidance.
Conclus ion
CEMS is an important technique for nitoring the
continuous compliance of stationary sources. It should be an
expanding component of the air compliance program. Evaluation
of CEMS data has been shown to be effective for identifying
sources with continuous compliance problems and has all ed
agencies to utilize their compliance monitoring resources
more effectively.

-------
PN 113-88-03-31—047
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 4L
t4 R 3 I 988 OIFICE 01
AI APIC MOIATION
‘ lIMO RAN DUN
SUBJECT: Transmittal of OAQPS Interi Control. Policy Statement
FROM: tz.DLrectorgJ,J _
Office of Air Quality P nning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I , III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxi Management Divisioi
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
kit and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Attached is the final Interim Control Policy for
developing compliance schedules that require replacement or
upgrading of existing air pollution control equipment.
Comments solicited from the Air Compliance and Air Programs
Branch Chiefs, OECM, and SS© by a memoranc im of January 20,
1988, have been addressed, resulting in a few minor language
clarifications and one dtange to the policy.
The change resulted from a comment on the requirement
to maintain existing controls in the interim. In lieu of
maintaining the operation of the existing control. equipment
during the interim period, alla.,ance has been mde for
installing interim controls which my be re effective in
reducing emissions. The usage of interim controls may not
result in a delay of the installation of the final. control
equipment.

-------
—2—
Al.o, clarification has been made concerning the
installation of redundant equipment on n control systems.
Design requlre nts ntioned in this policy apply to those
sources which require contirn.ious eration of the process
equipti nt. Temporary shutdown during maintenance periods is
always a possible compliance alternative to adding redundant
control equipaEnt. The policy n states this specifically.
One notable recom nded change has riot been included.
The comment was made that performance bonds should not be
applied to activities which may be beyond the control of the
source, such as the delivery of materials. Installation of
control equipment frequently involves the activities of
several contractors and requires careful scheduling to avoid
delays. Late delivery of equipment can have a seriQis adverse
effect on the ability of a source to meet a tight installation
schedule. A SQ.lrce must take the necessary steps to select
the most reliable, rather than the lowest cost vendor, to
ensure that schedules are met.
Thank you for your assistance with the devel merit of
this policy statemment. If y .i have questions concerning it,
please contact Pam Saunders of my staff at FTS 382—2889,
EMail EPA6264.
Attachment

-------
IN’rER .I l NTROL POLICY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide uniform criteria
for developing final compliance requirei *nts, schedules, and
interim requir ents for sources in situations where failing,
deteriorating or inadequate air pollution control equipumnt
must be replaced or upgraded.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to situations where a determination to
rebuild or replace existing control equipr nt 1 as been made.
Situations mentioned in this policy may also be subject to
applicable civil penalties as stated in the Civil Penalty
Policy.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of thig policy are to require subject
sources to:
1. Minimize and continuously monitor emissions during
the interim period;
2. Attain final and continuing compliance as quickly
as feasible using all available i eans;
3. Maintain continuous compliance in the future by
appropriate design of the final control system,
including the contira.ious monitoring of excess
emissions.
POLICY
l ’rERIM t€ASJRES
Interi* asures combined with contiraied eration and
maintenance of existing controls mist be required wherever
existing controls are inadequate. During the interim period
until the new or upgraded control equip nt is operational
and the source Is in compliance 1 emissions from the source
must not be allowed to increase. The existing though
inadequate control equipment must remain cçerational to the
maximum extent possible, including being maintained and

-------
—2—
repaired, mtil such time that construction or tie—in of new
equipment requires its shutd n or removal. In lieu of
maintaining the existing thou inadequate control equipment,
interim coritroi.s which offer a higher degree of emission
reduction and are readily and reasonably available may be
installed. The use of such interim controLs shall not unduly
delay the installation of final control equipment.
When existing control equipment must be taken off line
to tie—in or complete construction of new or upgraded
equipment, additional interim controls or other interim
measures are required to ensure no increase in excess emissions
occurs during the tie—in period. Such measures may include
installation of additional temporary control equipment or
operational controls, e.g., curtailment of prod.iction rates,
relocation of production to complying process lines or
facilities, purchase of power or product elsewhere as needed,
or temporary shutdown.
The source should be r uired to implement an interim
continuous emissions ffcnitoring program, to enable the agency
to a n1tor the emissions performance of the source during the
interim period.
COMPLI?I CE R UIR 4ENTS
All compliance schedules must contain specific milestones
for design, construction, installation and operation of new
or rebuilt ccntrol equipment. The milestones should reflect
the shortest feasibLe schedule for achieving compliance and
should include, but not be limited to, the foll ing:
1.. Submittal of a control plan, including necessary
permit applications, to agency;
2. Award of major contract(s) to vendors;
3. DeLivery of materials or control equipment;
4. Initiation of off—site fabrication or on—site
construction or installation of the control
equipment;
5. Completion of installation or rebiliding of control
equipment;

-------
—3—
6. Testing and demonstration of final. compliance by
the source.
Performance bonds or stipulated penalties must be
associated with every milestone specified in the schedule.
To promote an expediti js schedule, the use of prefabricated
equipment or the use of double or triple shifts for the
construction or installation of uipn ent should be considered.
CO JTIN1JOUS COMPLIANCE AND t’ONITORING R UIREt. ’ ’S
A fundamental principle of this policy is that the source
must make every possible effort to maintain continuous
compliance after the new or rebijit uipInent becomes
operational. To assure continuous compliance during future
maintenance periods, all n or u raded uipment must
normally include spare compartr nts (or units) and parts (or
equipment) that can maintain nissions at a compliance level
while the remainder of the equipment is being replaced,
repaired, or intajned. In lieu of this, those sources that
do not require continuous availability of the process equipment
may shut d n during such perioc .
To assure the ability of the agency to monitor continuous
compliance in the future, the source mast Periodically report
excess emissions to the appropriate air pollution Control
agency. This may be accomplished t j requiring the installation,
operation and reportir g of data from continuous emissions
monitoring equipment. These require ents are to be set out
specifically in the compliance agreement.

-------
PM 113_88 O3-11-046
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHiNGTON D.C. 10410
UR (
MEMORANDUM
S B ECT: Listing Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Companies
Pursuant to Section 306 of the Clean air act
FROM: Michael S.
Associate Enforcement ounse
Air Enforcement DiviSi
cohn S. Seitz, Directo
stationary source Compi ance Division
Office of Air Qu
T e r r eli E.
Office of Enforcement Policy
Office of Compliance Analysis and program Operations
TO: Addressees
we urge you to consider listing, under Section 306 of the
Clean Air Act, contractors who are violators of the asbestos
demolition and renovation (DSP) standards, 40 C.F.R. Part 61,,
Subpart M. Since significant amounts of federal money are
involved in asbestos removal, we think that you will find
that contractor listing can be an effective sanction against
recalcitrant violators. It will deprive them of the privilege
of contracting or subcontracting with federal agencies or with
any other entity which has received federal grants or loans
for asbestos removal.
Contractors convicted of criminal violations under S 113
(c)(1) will be automatically listed under the Mandatory Listing
provisions, 40 C.FR. S 15.10. Under 40 C.F.R. 5 15.11, EPA
has the discretion to list contractors who
• have violated an administrative order under S 113(a) or
(d), S 167 or S 303,
• have been ISSUCd a Notice of Noncompliance under S 120,
• have been issued any form of civil ruling by a federal,
state or local court, as a result of noncompliance with
clean air standards,

-------
2.
• have been convicted by a state or local court of any
criminal violations of the CAA or by a federal court
for criminal violations under S 113(c)(2) (for making
false statements, records or reports); or
• have had a civil judicial enforcement action filed
against them in federal district court for CAA
violations.
Asbestos D&R contractors differ from the traditional
“stationary sources” of air pollution, because each job is
done at a different construction site, generally owned by
someone other than the asbestos D&R company. Therefore,
the enclosed legal memorandum was prepared to clarify the
application of the contractor listing regulations to asbestos
D R contractors.
This memorandum addresses the question of whether the bus-
iness address of an asbestos D&R company may be listed as the
“violating facility” when p cing an asbestos D&R company on
the L 1 ist of Violating FacuLties under Section 306 of the Clean
Air Act. It concludes that the business address of an asbestos
D&R company, rather than the address of the demolition site,
should be used to identify the “violating facility” when placing
an asbestos D&R company on the L.ist of Violating Facilities.
we need your help to make this program a success. To get
off to a good start, establishing some clear precedents, we
need your nomination of candidates for listing. We hope to start
with contractors with both egregious substantive violations and
notice violations. If a nationwide or very large contractor
has distinct regional or other sub—divisions, you should consider
whether naming the smaller unit as the “listed facility” is
more appropriate (cf. page 6 of the enclosed legal memorandum
for a discussion of this aspect). Please contact Rich Biondi
in SSCD (382—2826) or Charlie Garlow (475—7088) or 3ustina Fugh
(382—2864k in OECM—Air to consult about potential candidates
for listing before sending a formal recommendation to list to
Headquarters.
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II

-------
3.
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air and Radiat -ion Division Director
Region V
cc: Thomas L. Adams, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
3. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Civil Enforcement
Paul R. Thompson, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Criminal Enforcement
Gerald A. Bryan, Director
Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations
Francis S. Blake
General Counsel
Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Deputy Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel for Air and Radiation
Robert A. O’Meara, Chief
Control Technology and Compliance Section, Region I
en Eng, Chief
Air Compliance Branch, Region II
Bernard Turliniki, Chief
Air Enforcement Branch, Region III
James T. Wilburn, Chief
Air Compliance Branch, Region IV
Larry ertcher, Chief
Air Compliance Branch, Region V

-------
4.
John Hepola, Chief
Air Enforcement Branch, Region VI
Charles Whitmore, Chief
Air Compliance Section
Doug Skie, Chief
Compliance Section, Region VIII
Charles Seely, Chief
Compliance Section, Region IX
Michael Schultz, Chief
Compliance Section, Region X
Pam Hill, Air Team Leader
Office of Regional Counsel, Region I
Faith Halter, Air Branch Chief
Office of Regional Counsel, Region II
Marcia E. Mulkey, Air & Toxics Branch Chief
Office of Regional Counsel, Region III
Bill Anderson, Air, Water and General Law Branch Chief
Office of Regional Counsel, Region IV
Michael C. Smith, Air, Water, Toxics and
General Law Branch Chief
Office of Regional Counsel, Region V
Barbara Greenfie]d, Air Branch Chief
Office of Regional Counsel, Region VI
Robert Patrick, Air, Toxics and Pesticides Team Leader
Office of Regional Counsel, Region VII
Chris Phillips, Air Branch Chief
Office of Regional Counsel, Region VIII
Nancy Marvel, Air Team Leader
Office of Regional Counsel, Region IX
David Dabroski, Air and Toxics Team Leader
Office of Regional Counsel, Region X
Asbestos Enforcement Contacts
Regions I-X

-------
sI• I?.,
;fáI SS 4
> 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
c. ’
1
- II .2
or
SJO rI , .u t a,,o
COMtI*Nt CIsiT a .,
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Defining the “Violating Facility” for Purposes of
Listing Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Companies
Pursuant to Sectron 306 of the Clean Air Act
QUESTION PRESENTED: Can EPA use the business address or the
address of some other property used by an asbestos
demolition and renovation company to identify the
“violating facility” when placing the company on the
List of Violating Facilities?
ANSWER PRESENTED: The business address or the address of some
other property used by an asbestos demolition and
renovation company may be used to identify the
“violating facility,” rather than the address of
the particular site involved in the violating activity,
when placing an asbestos demolition and renovation
company on the List of Violating Facilities. Under
the definition in S 15.4, the “facility” includes
“any ... location or site of operations . .. to be
used in the performance of a contract, grant or loan.”

-------
2.
DISCUSSION
Background
Section 306(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. S 7606(a)) prohibits
federal agencies from entering into any contract for goods,
materials or services with a person who has been convicted of
certain violations of the CAA if the contract is to be performed
at wany facility at which the violation which gave rise to such
conviction occurred if such facility is owned, leased or supervised
by such person. This section provides the statutory authority
for mandatory listing of CAA violators.
Section 306(c) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. S 7606(c)) is the
statutory basis for the discretionary listing of CAA violators.
It directs the President to issue an order:
(1) requiring each Federal Agency ... to effectuate the
purpose and policy of [ the CAAI in such contracting
or assistance activities, and (2) setting forth pro-
cedures, sanctions, penalties, and such other provi-
sions ... necessary to carry out such requirement.
Section 508(c) of the Clean Water Act (C’WA) (33 U.S.C. S 1368)
as amended on October 18, 1982, by Pub. L. 95—500, 52, contained
an almost identical provision.
These provisions were implemented by Executive Order 11,738, -
issued on September 12, 1973 (38 Fed. Reg. 25,161). The Order
states that it is the policy of the Federal Government
to assure that each Federal agency empowered to enter
into contracts for the procurement of goods, materials,
or services and each Federal agency empowered to extend
Federal assistance ... shall undertake such procurement

-------
3.
and assistance activities in a manner that will result
in effective enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the
Clean water Act).
Eiec. Order No. 11,738, 35 Fed. Reg. 25,161 (1973)
On April 16, 1975, EPA promulgated regulations at 40
C.F.R. Part 15 (40 Fed. Reg. 17,124) which provide procedures
for insuring that Executive Branch agencies conduct their
procurement and assistance programs in accordance with the
President’s responsibility for ensuring compliance with CAA
and CWA standards. These regulations authorize EPA to suspend
or bar facilitiesw which are violating the CAA or the CWA from
receiving Federal contracts or subcontracts, grants or loans,
by placing them on a List of Violating Facilities. The regula-
tions require mandatory listing of violating facilities” after
the owner or operator is convicted for criminal violations
under S 113(c)(1) of t e CAA or S 309(c) of the CWA. They
provide for discretionary listing of facilities where there are
continuing and recurring civil violations of the CAA or CWA.
The EPA List of Violating facilities is published in the
Federal Register twice a year and is updated in the Federal
Register whenever a facility is added to the list or removed
from the list. The List is also transmitted to Federal agencies
with assistance responsibilities and to the General Services
Administration, which publishes a consolidated list of barred,
suspended or ineligible contractors.
/ These regulations were revised on September 5, 1985
(50 Fed. Reg. 36,188).

-------
4.
The Problem
The question which this memorandum addresses is what
is the “facility” to be placed on the List in the case of an
asbestos demolition and renovation company which has a history
of continuing and recurring violations of the National Emission
Standard for Asbestos (hereafter the Asbestos NESHAP) or which
is owned or operated by a person who has been convicted of a
criminal violation of the Asbestos NESHAP.2/ Since asbestos
demolition and renovation companies provide services, it is
sometimes more difficult to identify the “facility” of an as-
bestos demolition and renovation company than it is to identify
the “facility” of a company which produces goods. Goods are
generally produced in one or more buildings owned or leased by
the producer. Sometimes services are provided at a location
owned or leased by the provider. In other cases, services are
provided at a location owned or leased by the purchaser of the
service.
Asbestos demolition and renovation companies which violate
the asbestos NESRAP regulations generally do so in the course
of perfor.ing a contract to demolish or renovate a building
which is owned or leased by someone else. If the contractor
violates the asbestos regulations, the violations are most
likely to occur at the demolition or renovation site. Listing
2/ Asbestos NESHAP regulations, issued pursuant to S 112
of the Clean Air Act, are codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 61,
S 61.140 e ___

-------
5,
the address of the property at which the demolition or renovation
work occurred as the ‘violating facility’ would not accurately
identify the asbestos demolition and renovation company which
performed the work and, therefore, would not &Ccomplish the
intended purpose of CAA S 306(a) —— to assure that persons or
corporations convicted of a knowing violation of CAA standards
or limitations are ineligible to enter into Federal contracts
until the continuing or recurring violation has been corrected.3/
The issue is whether CAA S 306 and the regulations promul-
gated to implement this section, 40 C.F.R. Part 15, permit EPA
to list, as a ‘facility’, the executive office (or similar
address) of the person (or company) providing the services and
taking the action that violated the CAA.
Definition of Facility
EPA regulations implementing the Contractor Listing Program
are found at 40 C.F.R. Part 15. Section 15.11 authorizes the
Listing Official to ‘place a facility on the List” under stated
conditjo s. Section 15.4 defines ‘facility’:
‘Facility’ means any building, plant, installation,
stri cture, mine, vessel or other floating craft,
location or site of operations owned, leased or
supervised by an applicant, contractor, grantee,
or borrower to be used in the performance of a con-
tract grant or loan , Where a location or site of
operations contains or includes more than one build-
ing, plant, installation, or structure, the entire
location or site shall be deemed to be a facility,
3/ Of course, in cases where the owner of the building which
was renovated or demolished has also violated the asbestos
NESHAP, the building may also be listed as a “violating facility’.

-------
6.
except where the Assistant Administrator determines
that independent facilities are located in one
geographic area. (emphasis added).
For the purposes of the Contractor Listing Program, the
facility of a company includes any location used by the com-
pany to produce the particular goods or provide the particular
services which the government may wish to purchase or assist
others to purchase under a particular contract.4/ To determine
whether a particular building, plant, installation ... location
or site” is part of a “facility” at which a violation giving
rise to a criminal conviction occurred, or is part of a “facility”
which has a record of continuing or recurring noncompliance
with clean air (or water) standards, one should look at the
relationship of the “building, plant, installation ... location
or site,” to the production of the goods or services which the
government might procure or assist others in procuring . Depend-
ing on circumstances, the relevant “facility” may or may not
include all locations owned by a company. If several different
locations are involved in manufacturing a particular product or
4/ A different definition of “facility’ is used in the Asbestos
NESBAP, 40 C.F.R. S 61.141. That definition should be used for
the purpose of determining whether the owner or operator an of
an asbestos demolition and renovation company complies with
the NESHAP. If the Agency determines that the owner or operator
of the company violated any of the requirements of the NESHAP,
then the definition in 40 C.F.R. S 15.4 should be used to
determine what the “violating facility” is.

-------
7.
in supplying a particular service, all, of those locations
together sake up the ‘facility .5/
The Legislative History
This definition of facilityN is consistent with the pur-
pose of S 306, which was designed to be a sanction available to
EPA against those who would provide goods and services to the
Federal government using noncomplying facilities. Section 306
of the CAA is derived from Senate bill S. 4358. Section 306(a)
of the Senate bill read as follows:
Sec. 306(a) Any person U) required to comply with
an order issued by a Federal court pursuant to this Act
who fails to comply within the time period specified
tn such order, or (2) convicted by a Federal court for
knowing violation of any applicable schedule or time-
table of compliance, emissions requirement, prohibition,
emission standard, or standard of performance, shall be
ineligible to enter into any contract with any Federal
agency for the procurement of goods, materials, and
services to perform such work at or with any facilities
sublect to such action by the court which are owned,
leased or supervised by such person . Such ineligibility
shall continue until the Secretary (of HEW) certifies
compliance with such order, or that the conviction
giving rise to the violation has been corrected.
(emphasis added).
S. 4358, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. S 306 (1970).
5/ Where a company has several different divisions or factories
or regional offices, each producing particular goods or services
independently from each other, each would be a separate facili ty:
and if one of those divisions or factories or regional offices
La violating the, CAA or the CWA, that particular unit of the
company is the only one that would be placed on the List of
Violating Facilities.

-------
8.
The Senate Committee on Public Works issued a report to
accompany S. 4358, in which the following explanation of Sectio .
306 was given:
The Committee considered proposals offered by
Senator Nuskie and Senator Cook to assure that the
Federal Government does not patronize or subsidize
polluters in its procurement practices and policies.
Section 306 would make any person or corpora-
tion who fails to comply with a court order issued
under this Act or who is convicted of a knowing
violation of any schedule or timetable of compli-
ance, emission requirement, prohibition, emission
standard, or standard of performance, inelicible
for a Federal contract for any work to be done at
the polluting facility....
This section would be limited, whenever
feasible and reasonable, to contracts affecting
only the facility not in compliance , rather than
the entire corporate entity or operating division .
There might be cases where a plant could not
participate in a Federal contract due to a violation
but another plant owned by the same company might bid
and transfer other work to the first plant. This type
of action would circumvent the intent of this pro-
vision . In this case, the company’s second facility
should also be barred from bidding until the first
plant returns to compliance.
There would also be instances where a second plant
within a corporation was seeking a contract unrelated
to the violation at the first plant. In such a case,
the unrelated facility should be permitted to bid and
receive Federal contracts. (emphasis added).
S. Rept. No. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 39 (1970).
Section 306 of S. 4358 was passed by the Senate without
change. A companion bill in the House, H.R. 17255, 91st Cong.,
2d Seas. (1970), had no provision about procurement policies.
In conference, the provision making persons convicted of knowin
violat ions of the CAA ineligible for Federal contracts or assis

-------
tance was retained. In lieu of the provision of the Senate
bill extending ineligibility to persons subject to, but not
complying with, court orders, the conference committee substi-
tuted a more general requirement that ‘the President shall
cause to be issued an Order (1) requiring each Federal agency
to effectuate the purpose and policy of this chapter in
such contracting and assistance activities,.. .‘6/
The Executive Order
The President complied with this mandate by issuing
Executive Order No. 11,602 on June 29, 1971. E.O. No. 11,602
was superseded by Executive Order No. 11,738, Ofl September io,
1973.7/ Exec. Order 11,738 sets forth the following Federal
6/ When the CAA amendments were reported out of the conference
committee, the conference report on Section 306 stated:
The conference substitute is more limited than
the Senate provision. it provides that persons con-
victed of a knowing violation of standards or limita-
tions shall be ineligible to enter into Federal con-
tracts until the Administrator certifies that the
violation has been corrected. The remainder of the
conference substitute follows the Senate amendment
by requiring the President to issue an order requiring
Federal agencies (1) to assist in the implementation
of this act and (2) to establish sanctions for non-
compliance.
Conference Report No. 1783 (to accompany H.R. 17255), 91st
Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 17, 1970), reprinted in 1970 u.s. Code
Cong. & Ad. News 5356, 5389.
7/ Exec. Order No. 11,738, 38 Fed. Reg. 25,161 (1973), amend-
ed Exec. Order 11,602, 36 Fed. Reg. 12,475 (1971), by adding the
words ‘Federal Water Pollution Control Act’ to 5 1. and changing
references to tne Act’ in SS 2, 4, 6 and 9 to ‘the Air Act’
and adding references to ‘the Water Act.’ Exec. Order 11,738
also adds S 11, which requires that regulations issued pursuant
to CWA S 508 shall be uniform with regulations issued pursuant
to CAA S 306 to the maximum extent possible.

-------
10.
procurement policy:
Section 1. Policy . It is the policy of the Federal
Government to improve and enhance environmental quality.
In furtherance of that policy, the program prescribed
in this Order is instituted to assure that Federal
4qencies are empowered to enter into contracts fi
the procurement of goods, materials or services j
to extend Fediral assistance by way of grants or
contracts in such a manner that will result in effec-
tive enforcement of the Clean Air Act ... and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. ... (emphasis
added).
Section 2 of the Order states, in part:
(b) In carrying out his responsibilities under this
Order, the Administrator shall ... designate facili-
ties which have given rise to a conviction for an
offense under section ll3(c)(1) of the Air Act
(and] publish and circulate ... ] jsts of those faci-
lities, together with the names and addresses of the
persons who have been convicted of such offenses
(emphasis added).
Section 3 prohibits any Federal agency from entering into any
contract with or extending any assistance to any facility which
has been listed pursuant to CAA S 306. Section 4 requires that
all Federal procurement regulations
issued by any agency of the Executive Branch shall
be amended to require ... inclusion of a provision
requiring compliance with the Air Act, the Water Act,
and standards issued pursuant thereto in the facili-
ties in which the contract is to be performed, or
which are involved in the activity or program to re-
ceive assistance . (emphasis added).
SectLon 5 authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency “to issue such rules, regulations, standards
and guidelines as he may deem necessary and appropriate to
carry out the purposes of this Order.N Sections 1 and 5 of

-------
11.
Exec. Order 11,738, together with S 306(c) of the CA.A (and
$ 508(c) of the CWA), provide the authority for the discretion-
ary listing program. EPA’S Contractor Listing regulations,
codified at 40 CIP.R. Part 15, implement the Executive Order.
Discussion
As defined in 40 C..F.R. S 15.4, a ‘facility” includes any
building, location, or site to be used in the course of perform-
ing the contract or loan. While the buildings or sites at
which work is performed are often also the bui.ldings or sites
at which a violation occurs, the fact that the violation may
occur’off—site”, i.e. , at a location owned or operated by a
customer, does not mean that such locations are not part of the
“facility” ‘to be used in the performance of” contract. The
“facility” of a contractor also includes the business address
which the company uses in its contracts, even if the business
address is simply a post office box.
As Congress recognized, a company may be violating the
CAA or CWA at one ‘facility” and have other complying ‘facilities”
1-;
which at not involved in the production of the same goods and
services Congress differentiated between entirely uninvolved
“facilities’, on the one hand, and involved ‘facilities’,
where a sister ‘facility” ‘B’ was used to circumvent a ban on
goods or services produced at ‘facility” “A’.
The definition of ‘facility’ in S 15.4 implements that
concept. If an asbestos demolition and renovation company has

-------
12.
two or more divisions which operate independently of each
other, each division would; at least presumptively, be a separate
“facility” under the definition found in S 15.4. If only one
of the divisions is convicted of criminal violations of the
asbestos NESRAP or if only one of the divisions has a record of
continuing or recurring noncompliance with the asbestos NESHAP,
only that division of the company would be placed on the List
of Violating Facilities, absent the kind of situation described
by Congress.
This is the only way that an asbestos demolition and reno-
vation “facility” can be defined which is consistent with the
intent of the statutes, the executive orders, and the regulations.
A contrary interpretation would fail to “effectuate the purpose
and policy of (the CAA] in (the government’s) contracting and
assistance activities” as required by S 306. The “facility”
concept is intended to carry out, not to thwart, the intent of
$ 306. While the business address of the “facility” will
often coincide with the address of the site where violations
occurred, there is no requirement in $ 306 that it do so.
Listing La intended broadly to sanction “persons” who continue
to violati the CAA by depriving them of access to Federal con-
tracts for goods and services and to federal grants and loans.
Congress did not intend to limit this sanction to contractors
who engage in violative conduct on property that they happen tO
own or control. So long as the business address of the asbestos

-------
13.
demolition and renovation company is fairly associated with
the activity which is the violating conduct, that address may
be used to identify the wfacilityu to be placed on the List,
notwithstanding that additional, related work (and the actual
violations) occurred elsewhere.

-------
PN 113-88-03-02-045
,o
, 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
W t—2t9
MEMO RANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Revisions to Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutant (VHAP)
Civil Penalty Policy
S
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator ,7
for Air and Radiation (ANR-44 )’/
Thomas L. Adams, Jr. t..
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Addressees
Attached is the new Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutant (VHAP)
Civil Penalty Policy. This policy is a new Appendix VI to the
March 25, 1987 Revised Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil
Penalty Policy.
Major features in the policy are penalties for:
1) Reporting violations involving initial and semi—annual
reports;
2) Monitoring, inspection and testing violations, including
annual, monthly, weekly and daily requirements;
3) Failure to repair detected leaks within the appropriate
time frames;
4) Failure to use certain protective devices on various
pieces of equipment such as compressors and open—ended
valves or l’nes;
5) Violations of the record-keeping requirements; and
6) Untagged equipment in VHAP service and un tagged leaking
VHAP equipment.

-------
—2—
This policy applies to determining the gravity component of
the civil p.na]ty settlement amount for VHAP cases. The general
Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy should continue to be used
to make adjustments, if appropriate, to arrive at a penalty
settlement amount.
The policy was devised to address issues raised by the
Regions and the Department of Justice. A draft of this policy
was distributed to the Regions and to DOJ for comment on
February 19, 1987.
As you can see from the attached summary of comments submitted
by DOJ, the Regions and Headquarters, considerable effort has
been invested in this project. We attempted to accommodate every
comment except where there was a direct conflict in the suggestions
( e.g. , $25,000 versus $15,000 for initial report), in which case
we chose a compromise position.
We appreciate the considerable efforts which you and your
states have made to comment on the proposed policy and to enforce
the VHAP regulations. Please continue to emphasize enforcement
of these important public health standards.
Questions regarding this policy should be addressed to
Charles Garlow of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring at FTS 475—7088.
Attachments
Addressees:
Regional Administrators, Regions I—X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticide., and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI

-------
—3—
Air and Tozics Division Directors
Regions VII, VI I I, and X
Regional Counsel Air Enforcement Contacts
Regions I—X
VHAP NESHAP Contacts
cc: Jonathan Cannon, OECM
Jonathan Libber, LEPB
Thomas Gallagher, NEIC
Gerald Emison, OAQPS
Jack Farmer, OAOPS
David Buente, DOJ
Bill Becker, STAPPA-ALAPCO

-------
Summary of Comments on Draft VHAP Penalty Policy
DoJ Existing policy may generate Insufficient penalty fi
Economic benefit component shOuld not be referred to
a negligible”, but “difficult to determine”.
Where incomplete report filed, but missing information
supplied, without prompting, give credit.
List separate penalty for monitoring/testing procedures
performed incorrectly.
List failure to file initial source report (40 C.F.R.
6l.l0)
Include separate penalty for failure to mark equipment
“in—benzene” service.
Clarify failure to keep records in a log pursuant to 40
C.F.R. §61.246.
Region 111: VHAP/VOC emissions may be more harmful in ozone
non—attainment area.
Flesh out recordkeeping penalty re: Subpart A,
initial reports.
Clarify how daily computation works.
For first time violation of reporting allow a range
for size of source.
Region IV: Clarify application of VHAP policy to vinyl chloride.
Region V: Make penalties for semi—annual reports $15,000 instead
of $25,000.
$25,000 maximum is appropriate for monitoring viola-
tions because of greater risk of harm to environment.
$25,000 maximum for failure to repair leaks is
similarly appropriate.
Reduce $25,000 to $15,000 for failure to identify
VHAP equipment in initial report.

-------
—2—
Failure to put a required device on VHAP equipment
should have the recommended $15,000 penalty.
Reduce $25,000 to $15,000 for ecordJceeping violation.
Region VI: Add $25,000 fine for failure to submit initial
report (40 C.F.R. §61.10) and failure to submit
this report within 90 days after the effective
date (40 C.F.R. § 6 1.247(aJ).
Increase penalties for daily monitoring violations,
especially lengthy violations.
Clarify VHAP penalty policy application in vinyl
chloride cases.
Does this mean we do not have to calculate the
benefit component any more?
Region VII: Add penalty for failure to tag leaking equipment
40 CF.R. §61.246(b).
Add penalty for violation of alternative leak
detection program’s two percent allowable leaks 40
C.F.R. §61.243—1.
These violations are very similar to NSPS Subpart
VV. Why not establish a penalty policy for that
subpart also?
Headquarters: Treat initial report the same as semi—annual
report.
Open—ended valves should be capped; include that
in failure to equip.
A weekly inspection on the 8th day is too late for
the previous week, so list one penalty for the week
( e.g. , $1000) and then add $150/day for each day
after that if the report comes in late. Same with
other reports (monthly, annual).

-------
APPENDIX VI
Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutant Civil Penalty Policy
This policy shall be used to determine the gravity component
of the civil penalty settlement amount for cases enforcing the
National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks (Pugitive Emission
Sources), 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart V, which applies to volatile
hazardous air pollutants (VHAP) and the general reporting reauire—
ments of Subpart A. It is to be used in lieu of the scheme for
determining the gravity component set forth in the general Clean
Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy. It is intended
as a supplement to the Vinyl Chloride Civil Penalty Policy for
vinyl chloride cases. In those vinyl chloride cases in which the
vinyl chloride and VHAP civil penalty policies are inconsistent
(such as the $25,000 penalty for failure to timely submit a
complete semi-annual report under the vinyl chloride policy versus
the $15,000 penalty for the same violation under the VHAP policy)
the vinyl chloride penalty policy should be applied.
The preliminary deterrence amount for VHAP cases, as for
other stationary source cases, consists of a gravity component
and a benefit component. Adjustments for degree of willfulness
or negligence, degree of cooperation, history of noncompliance,
ability to pay, litigation practicalities, and other unique
factors should be made, if appropriate, in accordance with the
Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy. Additionally, adjustments
may be considered because a company’s VHAP/VOC emissions or
potential emissions are more serious in a nonattainment area for
ozone. Reporting penalties could be adjusted depending on the
number of VHAP sources, that is, whether a plant has few or
numerous valves and pumps.
The gravity component of the penalty reflects the seriousness
of the violation. A separate scheme has been developed for VHAP
cases partly because the economic benefit component may be
difficult to determine, although if the economic benefit can be
calculated, it should be. In addition, several factors in the
general policy, such as the level of violation as a percentage
above the standard, do not directly apply to VHAP cases. The
hazardous nature of VHAPS is reflected in establishing a substantial
gravity component.

-------
— 2-
The attached chart addresses six major types of requirements
in the VifAP standard:
1) Repcrting . A source is required to submit initial and
semiannual reports which include, among other things, a listing of
equipment in VNAP service, records of leaks from certain pieces of
equipment and repairs of leaks, and results of performance tests.
2) Monitoring, inspection, and testing . The standard
includes four types of such requirements: annual testing, such
as testing from certain requirements, under S61.242—2(e)(3):
monthly monitoring, such as monitoring of valves under S6l.242-
7(a); weekly inspection, such as visual inspection of a pump
under S61.242—2(a)(2); and daily checking, such as checking a
sensor on a compressor seal system under S61.242—3(e)(l).
3) Repair of leaks . The standard generally requires that
a source, upon detection of a leak from regulated equipment, make
a first attempt at repair within 5 calendar days of detection and
complete the repair as soon as practicable but not later than 15
calendar days after detection. Since violations of these require-
ments appear to present the greatest potential for emissions
of VHAPs, the associated penalties are substantial.
4) Equipment standards . Certain pieces of equipment must
comply with requirements that specify that they be equipped with
certain devices, sometimes as an alternative to another standard.
For example, a compressor must be equipped with a seal system
that includes a barrier fluid system and that prevents leakage of
process fluid to the atmosphere, with certain exceptions, in
accordance with S61.242—3(a). One allowable alternative is that
the compressor be equipped with a closed—vent system capable of
capturing and transporting any leakage to a control device, in
accordance with S61.242-3(h). Another example is open—ended
valves which must be capped or otherwise secured.
5) Recordkeepjng . A source must keep records of a number
of items, including leaks and attempts to repair leaks, design
parameters of certain equipment, and dates of startups and
shutdowns of closed—vent systems and control devices.
6) Marking egujoment - Equipment in VHAP service must be
tagged and leaking equipment must be separately or additionally
tagged.

-------
—3—
The chart assigns a gravity component for each violation.
For equipment standards, noncompliance with respect to each piece
of affected equipment (e.g., pump, compressor, etc.) constitutes
a separate violation for purposes of this policy. For monitoring,
inspection, and testing provisions, noncompliance with respect to
each requirement ( e.g. , monthly monitoring of pumps, monthly
monitoring of valves) constitutes a separate violation. Do not
count each pump or valve as a separate violation if not monitored.
The gravity component for the case as a whole is the sum of t’ e
numbers associated with all the violations in the case.
Type of Vo].ation Penalty
REPORTING
Initial Report
Failure to submit initial report $25,000
for new or existing source
Late submission of initial report $500/day up to $25,000
On—time but incomplete initial $25,000 x % of infor—
report. Estimate percentage of mation missing
information missing. If missing
information submitted without
prompting $400/day, u to the
figure calculated above
Semi—annual Reports
Failure to submit semiannual report $15,000 per report
Late submission of semiannual report S150/day up to
[ If submitted only in response to 15,000 per report
prompting by EPA or delegated
agency, regard as failure to submit
r e p0 r ti
On—time but incomplete semiannual report — $15,000 x % of irifor-
estimate percentage of information mation missing
missing. If missing information
submitted without prompting by the
government $125/day up to the figure
calculated above.

-------
—4—
Type of Violation Penalty
Non— response
Failure to respond to prompting $25,000
(written requests) regarding reports
MONITORING, INSPECTION, AND TESTING
Annual requirement $10,000 + $250/day up
to $25,000 total
Monthly requirement $5,000 + $250/day (up
to $7500 total for
missed month)
Weekly requirement $500 + $150/day up to
$1500 total for
missed week
Daily requirement $100/day for each day
missed for first
10 daily inspections
missed.
$500/day for each daily
inspection missed
thereafter.
Pot any monitoring,
inspection or testing
timely performed, but
performed incorrectly,
assess 50% of the
above penalties
REPAIR OF LEAKS
Failure to make first attempt $5000/day up to $25,000
at repair within specified time per leak
Failure to complete repair within $5000/day up to $25,000
specified time per leak
Violations of alternative standards $5000/day up to $25,000
for valves in VHAP service
pursuant to 40 CFR 561.243

-------
—5—
Type of Violation Penalty
EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
Failure to equip with required device $15,000 per item inade-
quately equipped
RECORDKEEPING
Failureto keep records in logs $25,000 per semiannual
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S6l.246 period
for period associated with
semiannual report
Incomplete records — estimate per- $25,000 per semiannual
centage of information missing period x % of infor-
mation missing
FAILURE TO MARK (TAG) EQUIPMENT
Mark equipment in VMAP service $100/day per piece of
equipment up to
$5,000
Mark leaking equipment $500/day per piece of
equipment up to
$5,000

-------
S
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
P14 113-87-10-08-044
OCT A - , 1 q ¶6 1
.cu o’
* .iO
MEM0M DU)1
SUBJECTz Policy en Correcting the Condition Giving R ss to
Listing Under the Contractor Listing Program
FROM: Thomas I .. Mans, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforc.m.nt
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Assistant Administrator for Water
General Counsel
Inspector G.n.ra].
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels R.g ons I—X
ISSUE PRESENTED : What constitutst correcting the condition
iiving cue to listing within the meaning of 40 CFR fl15.20 and
15.21.
BACKGROUND : The Environ mefltal Protection Agency (EPA) is provided
authority under §306 of the Clean Air Act (CM). 42 U.S.C. §7606.
§508 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)., 33 U.S.C. 41368, Executive
Order 11738 and 40 CFR Part 15 (49 Fed. Rag. 30628) to prohibit
any facility owned, leased or supervised by a person convicted of
violating §113(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S .C. §7413(c)(t).
or §309(c) of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. §1319 (c). or found
to be a source of continuing or recurring CM or CWA vjo]1t3Ofl$
despite previous enforcement actions, from r•c•ivinq any federal
contract or subcontract. The prohibitiOli agsin it the use of such
facilities continues in the case of a listing action resulting from
a criminal conviction until the Administrator certifies that the
condition giving rio. to such conviction ha. been corrected. 5 42
U.S.C. 47606. 33 U.S.C. §1366.
This statutory requirement is implemented by regulations
r.quizing the Assistant Administrator f or Enforcement and Compl-
ance Monitoring, as delegate. of the Administrator, to certify
that the condition giving ris, to listing has been corrected. Ltt
40 CFR 4415.20 and l521(s)(2). before a facility may be r.mO S°

-------
2
from the EPA List of Violating Facilities (the List). 1 Howeve;
the statute and its legislative history provide no d•fjfljtiv.
guidanc, on how that phrase should be intsrpr.t.d. and the ques-
tion is not addressed in the regulations. The Legislative his-
tories of ths Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act provide that a
purpos. of the contractor listing program is to ensure that the
Federal, Government wili net patronize or subsidiz, polluters
through its procurement practices and pol .ici.s. S. Conference
Rep No. 1236 (to accompany S. 2770. the senate version of the
Clean Water Act), 92nd Congress, 2d Session, reprinted in 1972
U.S. Cod. Cong. & Ad. $ews 3776, 3824. The regulationsjrovjcie:
ext is the policy of the Federal Government to
improve and enhance environmental quality. This
regulation is issued to ensure that each agency in
the Executive Branch of the Federal Government that
is empowered to enter into contracts for the
procurement of goods, materials or services or to
extend Federal assistance by way of grant. loan, or
contract undertakes such procurement and assistance
activities in a nner that will result in effective
enforcement of the Clean Air Aet...and the Clean
Water Act...and does not favor firma where production
costs may be lower due to noncompliance.” 40 CFR
cis.i.
In Addition to the policies cited above, implementation of
the contractor listing program should be carried out in a manner
that achieves the following three goalsi (1) compLianc, with
environmental regulations and swift resolution of environmental
problems; (2) fair and equitable treatment of the regulated
community: and (3) deterrence. Furthermore, the admi.nistrative
challenges associated with th. program can be exacerbated or
1 The Contractor Listing Program is composed of two parts:
(1) mandatory listing puruant to 40 CFR cts.io which occurs auto-
matically upon conviction under l13(c)(L) of the Clean Mr Act
or ç309(c) of the Clean Water Act and (2) discretionary listing
pursuant to 40 CTR lS.11 based on continuing or recurring
noncompliance with clean air or clean water standards despite
previous enlorcsment actions. A facility listed under the
mandatory listing program may only obtain removal from the list
on the basis of correcting th. condition which gave rise to
listing. A facility listed under th. discretionary listing
program may be removed from the List by correcting th. condition
giving rise to listing as well as other means. Except where
otherwise indicated, the policies contained in this document
apply to requests for removal following mandatory or discretionary
listing.

-------
3
reduced depending on the procedures EPA foli t determine if a
facility is entitl.d to removal from th. List. 2
PURPOSE : Two approaches have been proposed for defining what
would be necessary to certify that the condition giving rise to
listing has been corrected and grant a facility. request for
- r.mova l. fros the List following mandatory or discretionary list..
ing. The Physical Correction Approach defines correcting the
condition giving rise to listing as requiring th. facility to
come into compliance with the statutory and regulatory provisions
whose violation lid to listing. The Scheduled Correction Approach
defines correcting the condition giving rise to listing as requ
ing the facility to be sub .ct to an independently enforceable
agreement to perform all corrective action in accordance with a
schedul, for complianc, established by EPA.
EPA has not formally adopted any definition of What con-
stitutes correcting the condition giving rise to listing. To
date, the listing program has generally required Physical Correc-
tion in determining whether a facility is entitled to be removed
TF the List. However, the approaches identified in this policy
document are not mutually exclusive. Formal adoption of the Phys-
ical Correction Approach and Scheduled Correction Approach would give
EPA greater flexibility in carrying out the contractor l iting
program and will better permit EPA to achieve its broader goals of
enhancing compliance and improving the environment.
The purpose of this policy document is to present these
two approaches, identify the rationale supporting each approach.
establish criteria for applying each and identify four nenex-
clusive mechanisms for meeting the requirements of the second
approach. The policies established in this policy document would
apply to requests for removal filed following mandatory or
discretionary listing.
CRITERIA : Any definition of what is necessary to certify
that th. condition giving rise to mandatory listing has been
corrected must provide for the following:’
2 As the legislative history to $508 of the Clean Water Act
acknowledged: me effectiveness of this section would depend on
fast, accurate dissemination of information. All Federal agencies
would have to be rapidly apprised of any abatement or4er or
conviction which would bar a facility from eligibility for Federal
contracts. The dministrator would also have to act expeditiously
to certify that a facility had achieved compliance, and notify
all Federal agencies of that fact. Delays in reporting such
information, leading to inaccurate public discloeures, would
quickly render this section unworkab le. S. Pep. No. 414 (to
accompany 5. 2770, the senate version of the C Iean Water Act),
92nd Congress, 2d Session, reprinted in 1972 U.S. Code Cong. &
Ad. News 3668, 3749—3750.

-------
4
• Enforceability — Then, must be adequate incentives for the
facility to correct the condit .ion and there must be an
efficient means for EPA. at its sole discretion, to enforce
th. requirement to take corrective action.
• Verifiability — There must be sufficient credible and veri-
fiable information generated by a source other than the
violator to permit EPA to make an independent judgment
that the condition has been corrected.
• Certainty — There must be sufficient assurance that the
facility will be in complianc, with the statutory and
regulatory requirements associated with the conviction to
permit the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring to certify that the condition that
gave rise to listing has been corrected.
• Certification by the Violator — A responsible executive of
the facility must certify, subject to the sanctions of
18 U.S.C. 1OOl, that the condition has been corrected.
The two approaches, and the manner in which they meet these
criteria, are described below.
PHYSICAL CORRZCTION APPROACH : In order to correct the condition
that gave rise to listing, a facility must demonstrate that it is
presently in compliance with the specific statutory and regulatory
requirements which were the sub)ect of the criminal conviction or
judicial order in the underlying criminal or civil enforcement
action.
Discussion: The Physical Correction Approach would require a
iTitdacility to come into compliance with the statutory and
regulatory requirements whose violation led to listing before a
request for removal would be granted. This approach provides
enforceability by conditioning removal from the List on the
completion of all corrective action. Verifiability is provided
through an inspection of the facility by EPA, the state or an
independent, credible third-party. Certainty that the facility
will, be in compliance with the statutory and regulatory require-
ments associated with the violation is ensured since compliance
must be de nstrated before the request for removal is granted.
Finally, an officer of the facility will be required to submit
a written statement, subject to the criminal sanctions provided
by 18 U.S.C. ]OOl, certifying that all corrective action has
been completed before removal is granted.
SCHEDULED CORRECTION APPROACH : In order to correct the condition
that gave rise to mandatory listing, a facility must be subject
to an independently enforceable obligation tO take all steps
necessary to bring the facility into compliance with the specific
statutory and regulatory requirements which were the sub]ect of
the criminal conviction or )udicial order in th. underlying
criminal or civil enforcement action and to carry out any aedi-

-------
S
tional corrective action which EPA may identify. During the
period that the facility is engaged in. scheduled correction, it
ast use reasonable interim control practices identified by EPA
to reduce discharges. If the facility fails to com. into com-
pliance according to the schedule set by EPA, the Agency, at its sole
discretion, may automatically plac. the facility back en the
List.
Discussion : The Scheduled Correction Approach would permit EPA
to grant a facility’s request for removal, from the List if the
facility’s future complianc. is ensured by an appropriate ind.p.nd—
.ntly enforceable obligation tO carry out the necessary corrective
action identified by EPA. It allows earlier removal, from the
List with compliance ensured by an enforc.ab]s obligation other
than th . listing sanction plus EPA’s right to automatically
relist the facility ini .diateLy on the basis of the Agency s
determination that the facility has net met the compliance
schedule.
This approach can be implemented using alternative mechanisms
which impos. an indepenc .ntly enforceable obligation on the
facility to complete all corrective action. Four nonexciusive
options for impl.m.nti.ng this approach are described below.
This policy does not prefer the use of one mechanism over another
and no inference should be drawn from the order in which the
options ar. listed. EPA retains the sole discrotion to grant
removal under the Scheduled Correction Approach and the sole
discr.tion to determine which mechanism can be used to meet the
requirements of the Scheduled Correction Approach in each case.
CONSENT DECREE MECHANISM : If a facility is subject to a judicial—
ly enforceable federal or state consent decree containing an
acceptable compliance schedule and th. facility acknowlod S EPA S
right to automatically place it back on the List for failing to
meet that schedule. EPA will have sufficient assurance of the
facility’s futur. compliance to certify that th. condition
giving rise to mandatory listing has been corrected.
Discussion : The contempt power of the court and EPA’s right to
automatically relist th . facility provide the means for enforcing
the facility’s obligation under th. consent deer.. to complete
corrective action. Th. court’s contempt powers and EPA’s r.listing
rights also provide certainty that all corrective action will be
accomplished. Verifiability is provided through an appropriate
inspection and an officer of the facility must submit a written
statement, subject to 18 U.S.C. çlOOl. certifying that all correc-
tiv, action has been taken before EPA will join in a motion to
dissolve the consent decree. If the consent decree is modified
without EPA approval, the Agency will not be bound by the modifi-
cation and will retain the right to relist the facility ccordiflg
to the terms originally agreed upon by EPA.

-------
6
P O8ATION ORDER MECHANISM : If in cases involving a criminal con-
viction, an accsptab]. compliance schedule ii included in the
probation order issued by the court and th. facility acknowledges
EPA ’s right to automatically plac, it back on the List for failing
to meet that schsduls. EPA will have sufficient assurance of the
facility’s future co 2.iancs to certify that th. condition giving
ris, to mandatory listing has been corrected.
Diicussion The contempt power of th . court and EPA’s right to
automatically relist the facility provide the means for enforcing
th. defendant’s obligation to complete the corrsctive action
embodied in th. court’. probation order and provid, certainty
that all corrective action will be completed. Verifiability is
provided by inspection. to determine if the defendant is complying
with th. terms of probation and the d.f.ndant or an appropriate
officer of the facility must submit a written statement, subject
to 18 U.S.C. çlOOl, or mak. an oral. statement in epez court while
subject to sanctions for false statement equivalent to 18 U.S.C.
lOOl. certifying that .11 corrective action has been taken before
the defendant is released from probation. If th. terms of
probation an, modified without EPA approval, the Ag.ncy will net.
be bound by those modificatoins in carrying out the listing
program and will retain the right to relist the facility according
to the terms originally agreed upon by EPA.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER PLUS PERFORMM CE GUARANTEE MECHANISM : If a
ficility.is sub3ect to a federal or state Administrative Order
that contain, an acceptable compliance schedule. th. facility
provides an acceptable performance guarante. and th. facility
acknowledges EPA’s right to automatically plac. it back on the
List for failing to meet the complianc, schedule. EPA will have
sufficient assurance of the facility’s future compliance to
c.rtify that the condition giving rise to mandatory listing has
been corrected.
Discussion : This approach provides enforceability through judi-
cial enforcement of the administrative order and EPA’S right to
automatically r.list the facility. Certainty that. the corrective
action will be completed is provided by a performance guarantee.
such as a performance bend, that makes a third party responsible
for completing the corrective action identified in the administra-
tive order. Verifiability is provided through appropriate inspec-
tions and an officer of th. facility will be required to submit a
written statement, subject to 18 U.S.C. %1OOl. certifying that all
corrective action has been completed b.fore the administrative
order wilt be dissolved. If the administrative order is modified
without EPA approval, the Agency will not be bound by those
modifications in carrying out the listing program and will retain
the right to r.1ist the facility according to the terms originally
agreed upon by EPA.

-------
-7—-
PERMIT AUTHORITY MECHAMISM : If • compliance schedule is included
in a permit issued by EPA or the Stat., the facility provides an
acc.ptabls performance guarantee and the facility acknowledges
EPA’s right to automatically place it back on the List for failing
to meet the complianCe sch.dul., EPA Will have sufficient assurance
of the facility’s future complianc, to c.c .ify that the condition
giving iss to mandatory listing ha. been corr.ct•d.
Discuesiont Eflforceat ’i12ty is provided through the ability to
rescind th, permit and relist ths facility. Certainty s provid.d
through the performance guarantee. Verifiability is ensured
through -th. normal regulatory inspection SChidUlCe AZt officer of
the facility will be required to submit a written statement,
subject to 18 U.S.C. 11001. certifying that the corrective
action has been completed before EPA will modify the permit to
terminats EPA’s right to reiist th. facility. If th• permit s
modified without EPA approva1 the Agency will not be bound by
those modifications in carrying out the listing program and will
retain the right to rslist the facility according to the terms
originally agreed upon by EPA.
APPLICABILITY : The policie, and procedures established in this
document are intended solely as guidance for government personnel.
They ar. not intended, and cannot be relied upon. to create any
rights, substantive or procedural. enforceable by any party in
litigation with th. United State.. EPA reserve, the right to
act at variance with these policie, and procedure. and to change
them at any time without public notice.

-------
PN 113-87—12-31—043
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASH’N( ..fl’ , C’ C. 2O CC
4 pq 0 tP
DEC 3 I i927
MEMO RANDOM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Evaluating Clean Air Act Enforcement of
State Implementation Plan Violations Involving Proposed
FROM: Michael S. Alushiri
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Office of Enforcement and C ømp1iance Monitoring
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compli ce uivis
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard
TO: See Below
In light of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in American
Cyanamid which interpreted State Implementation Plan (“SIP’)
revision processing requirements, we are providing some criteria
for you to consider when deciding on appropriate enforcement
responses where SIP revisions are pending. This guidance also
suggests how the Regions should apply the criteria in developing
enforcement cases. Some of the criteria involve a straightforward
application of facts; other criteria involve the application of
variable equitable considerations to the unique circumstances of
each case. We have attached a case evaluation form for your
assessment of each case. The format is designed to allow us to
assess national trends in SIP revisions. Please evaluate the
facts of individual cases based on the criteria, then complete
and include the form with all litigation reports in SIP
enforcement cases.
Background
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act requires each state to
prepare a SIP for the attainment and maintenance of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, and to submit the SIP to EPA for
approval. The Administrator is required by Section llO(a)(2) to

-------
—2—
act on initial submissions within four months. Section llO(a)(3)
provides the procedure for EPA action on SIP revisions, but has no
similar explicit deadline for EPA action. As discussed more fully
below, three federal circuit courts have concluded that the four-
month deadline applicable to initial SIP submissions imp].iedly
applies to SIP revisions. The Sixth Circuit has suggested that
this time limitation does not apply to SIP revisions.
The Act also authorizes the Administrator to initiate
enforcement proceedings against any person in violation of any
requirement of an applicable SIP, i.e. , the implementation plan,
or the most recent revision thereto, which has been approved by
EPA. Two federal circuit courts have limited Section 120 enforce-
ment when final EPA action on a SIP revision has been pending for
more than four months. However, the Northern District of
California held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and
refused to rescind notices of violation although a SIP revision
had been pending at EPA for more than four months.
EPA currently reviews approximately 150 to 200 SIP revisions
each calendar year. The review of each of these revisions
routinely requires more than four months to complete. Under
EPA’s current workload model, a final SIP revision decision is
scheduled to be published within 14 months of submission. In
fact, however, less than 50% of these revisions are processed
within fourteen months, and some revisions have taken four to
five years to process. Although delays have often resulted from
the submission by states of incomplete SIP revision packages,
internal delays at EPA also affect the timing. Additionally, 0MB
review of proposals to disapprove submitted revisions may cause
further delays in the process.
We recently evaluated the extent to which pending SIP
revisions are affecting enforcement. En a preliminary July, 1987
survey of active civil judicial SIP actions ( i.e. , cases which
had been referred and filed other than those where a consent
decree had been entered by a court), 44 of the 81 cases were
found to be affected by SIP revisions pending at EPA or revisions
promulgated by states pursuant to alleged generic SIP revision
authority and not submitted for EPA review. The numbers may
change with further investigation of the circumstances pertaining
to each revision, but it seems that a substantial proportion of
the cases are affected.
Even if EPA takes administrative steps to streamline and
further standardize the SIP review process, or if Congress passes
legislation extending the current statutory time period, cases
will continue to be affected by pending SIP revisions. The
Agency’s workload can be expected to increase as a result of

-------
—3—
contemplated SIP calls for ozone nonattainment areas, new SIPs
resulting from NAAQS revisions ( e.g. , PM 10 ), and SIP revisions
contemplated by proposed legislation. In addition, SIP revisions
can be expected to increase as a defensive strategy to side-track
enforcement in light of recent adverse judicial interpretation.
Therefore, addressing proposed SIP revisions and the SIP revision
process will become important considerations in pending and
future air enforcement cases.
Judicial Interpretation of the SIP Revision Procedure
Some courts have considered the SIP revision procedures and,
in some instances, also have considered whether SIP revision
timing affects enforcement. These judicial determinations should
be considered by a Region during an evaluation of a case prior
to its referral. The following judicial decisions have addressed
the issue of the SIP revision procedure.
In Duguesne Light Co. v. EPA , 698 F.2d 456 (D.C. Cir.
1983), the D.C. Circuit held that SIP revisions must be acted
upon by the Administrator within four months and that Section 120
administrative penalties may be assessed but collection would be
“held in abeyance” for the period beyond the four month deadline.
If EPA disapproves the proposed revision, it may collect the
penalty from the date of the deadline, with interest.
The Fifth Circuit refused to adopt the D.C. Circuit Court
rule regarding the effect of delay past four months in a Section
120 proceeding. In American Cyanainid Co. v. EPA , 810 F.2d 493,
500 (5th Cir. 1987), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
EPA may not collect Section 120 administrative penalties for
violations of an applicable SIP during the period “between 1)
four months after a state submits and 2) the date EPA rejects the
revision.” The Court also held that EPA may not “commence” a
Section 120 proceeding to collect the economic benefit of noncom-
pliance with the applicable SIP, other than to issue a notice of
noncompliance, once four months have passed without EPA action on
a pending revision. After EPA ultimately rejects a proposed
revision, it may commence a Section 120 proceeding. The court
stated that it had not prohibited EPA from collecting noncompliance
penalties from the date of a notice of noncompliance until four
months after the state submitted a proposed SIP revision and then
resuming noncompliance penalties for the period after EPA rejected
the State’s proposed revision. Neither Duguesrie Light Co. v.
EPA, supra nor American Cyanamid Co. v. EPA, supra pertained to
an injunctive action.
In Council of Commuter Organizations v. Gorsuch , 683 F.2d
648 (2nd Cir. 1982) and Council of Commuter Organizations v.
Thomas , 799 F.2d 879 (2nd Cir. 1986) the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals used the four-month requirement for review of initial

-------
-4—
SIPs as an analogy and stated that EPA was required to approve or
disapprove SIP revisions within four months. The Second Circuit
did not, however, discuss whether the pendency of a SIP revision
for more than four months impinges on EPA’s authority to enforce
a provision of the applicable SIP. Instead, the court stated
that the appropriate remedy for requiring an EPA decision within
four months was a citizen’s suit.
In United States v. National Steel Corp. , 767 F.2d 1176
(6th Cir. 1985), the Sixth Circuit accepted EPA’S interpretation
that the four month rule in the Act applies only to EPA review
of general state plans and not to revisions.
In Dunn—Edwards v. Thomas , C.A. No. C-87-3l57 MHP (N.D. Cal.
August 4, 1987), the Northern District of California noted in
dictum that there was no express statutory deadline for EPA action
on SIP revisions. The Court did not decide whether EPA delays
impinged on Section 113 enforcement. It distinguished American
Cyanamid and Duguesne Light as involving penalty assessments
pursuant to Section 120 rather than Section 113. The court
dismissed an action by paint manufacturers to enjoin EPA from
taking initial steps pursuant to Section 113 to enforce a SIP
where a proposed revision had been pending at EPA for more than
four months. Although the Court did not decide whether the
pendency of the SIP revision for more than four months would bar
issuance of a Section 113(a) administrative order or initiation
of a Section 113(b) judicial enforcement action, the Court
refused to “rescind” the Notices of Violation which EPA issued to
the companies.
Many courts which have not directly addres8ed the deadline
issue have held or stated in dicta that revisions to SIPs are
ineffective without EPA approval. See Train v. NRDC , 421 U.S.
60, 92 (1975) (“This litigation, however, is carried out on the
polluter’s time not the public’s, for during [ the pendency of a
SIP revision] the original regulations remain in effect, and the
polluter’s failure to comply may subject him to a variety of
enforcement procedures.”); NRDC v. EPA , 507 F.2d 905, 915 (9th
Cir. 1974) (“...until any variance Is sanctioned by the EPA, any
source operating in contravention of a state implementation plan
that has been approved by that Agency is subject to forced com-
pliance at the instance of the EPA.”)7 Metro o1itan Washin9ton
Coaltion for Clean Air v. District of Columbia , 511 F.2d 809, 813
(D.C. Cir. 1985) (NA requirement of EPA approval prior to effec-
tuation of any proposed revision is thus essential to prevent
critical irreparable delays which the Administator is not empowered
to authorize under the less rigorous revision provisions or which

-------
—5—
do not meet the standards for revision.”); Getty Oil Co. (Eastern
ç perations) v. Ruckelshaua , 342 F. Supp. 1006 (D. Del. 1972),
rem’d on oths r grounds 467 F.2d 349 (3d Cir. 1972); United States
v. eeli g Pittsbur h Steel , 818 F.2d 1077 (3d Cir. 1987)
(pending bubble application at a state agency’ is not effective
until approved by the state agency and EPA and cannot be a basis
for extending compliance schedule in consent decree); United
States v. Ford Motor Co. , 814 F.2d 1099, 1103 (6th Cir. 1987)
(“the original emission limit remains fully enforceable until a
revision or variance is approved by both the State and EPA”);
Ohio Environmental. Council v. U.S. District Court. , 565 F.2d 393,
398 (6th Cir. 1977) (“If a plan became unenforceable every time
such a revision became a possibility, the entire enforcement
procedure of the Clean Air Act would be crippled.”) United States
v. West Penn Power Co. , 460 F. Supp. 1305 (W.D. Pa. 1978).
Analysis of Cases Affected by SIP Revisions
We have outlined some factors for you to consider in your
evaluation of a case involving a SIP revision. Some of these
factors allow an easy decision by you; others require a balancing
of equitable considerations applicable to the specific case.
These factors should be considered as you determine whether or
not to refer a civil action.
1. SIP revision approval is likely .
If a Region expects to approve a pending SIP revision which
would authorize the source’s existing operations, there is very
little likelihood that a court would either order compliance with
more stringent existing limits or assess substantial penalties
for emissions unless the defendant exceeds the limits allowed in
the revised SIP. Therefore, it is unlikely that a complaint
would be filed as a result of a referral seeking either injunctive
relief or penalties in this situation. Enforcement resources
would be better directed to other cases.
2. Fifth Circuit cases .
The Court of Appeals decision in American Cyanamid was not
appealed. Therefore, enforcement actions against sources located
within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction should be pursued only in
factually different circumstances. The Region should not seek
Section 120 penalties in administrative or judicial proceedings
until EPA has published at least one final disapproval of a SIP
revision in the Federal Register . However, if Section 120
enforcement is being delayed by successive proposed revisions, it

-------
—6—
can proceed after denying the first revision. The successive
submittals would be a new problem riot addressed by the court.
A Region might also refer cases based upon other factors not
adversely decided in American Cyanamid and it might refer
cases for Section 113 proceedings, which, unlike Section 120,
allow consideration of equitable factors in the assessment of
penalties. We urge you to consult with the Air Enforcement
Division and Department of Justice attorneys as Fifth Circuit
cases are considered for referral.
3. No Compliance with Proposed SIP Revision .
If the source has not materially complied with the proposed
SIP revision, the case is a reasonable candidate for referral
even before the Region acts on a pending SIP revision. A court
may be persuaded that penalties are appropriate. The appropriate
injunctive relief should be analyzed in the litigation report
with modifications to be determined at the time of settlement or
judicial decision.
4. No Proposed Revision Submitted to EPA .
Where federal approval of a SIP revision is required and
the state has not submitted a proposed SIP revision, e.g. , a
non—generic bubble, then there is no reason to delay enforcement. 1
Conversely, if the source complies with a generic bubble which
has been approved by the State, and EPA agrees that the state’s
bubble approval authority is generic, no enforcement action
should be undertaken. If EPA has not received a formal SIP
revision submittal because the State is still processing the
proposal or an incomplete submittal was returned to the State,
the case may be referred for enforcement. 2 ’ The litigation report
should discuss any known pending state action on a SIP revision
if the matter otherwise merits such action.
1/ EPA ought to inform both the State and the affected source for
ource—specific revisions that EPA believes the SIP revision
requires formal Federal approval, where there is a defensible
legal basis for EPA’s position.
2/ Where EPA has received only an informational package, the Region
aught to notify immediately the state and the affected source (in
the case of a source specific proposal) that the package is not a
formal submittal, and that enforcement action may be commenced
against the source.

-------
—7-.
5. SIP Revision Disapproval by Region .
As we discussed in earlier sections, several courts have
indicated that EPA should act on pending SIP changes before
enforcing a SIP standard. Other courts have recognized that
proposed changes should not thwart enforcement of existing regu-
lations. In order to present a reasonable position on this
issue, we recommend that the Region conduct a thorough analysis
of any SIP revision pending at EPA. The Regional Administrator
should formally act on a submittal by signing the proposed decision
before referring a case for enforcement. Regions should take
steps to ensure that a SI? revision Is reviewed on its merits and
independent of potential enforcement considerations.
If the Region decides to recommend disapproval of the package,
the analysis supporting that position could increase the prospects
for a successful enforcement action. Thus, a referral should not
be made until after the Regional Administrator acts on the package
proposing disapproval. We recommend that the Regional SI? staff
coordinate with the appropriate Headquarters offices to make sure
all issues are properly analyzed before taking action on a denial
package subject to Headquarters approval. The referral can be
made after the Regional decision if there is no required Head—
quarters review, or after an informal approval if Headquarters
review is necessary.
6. Equitable Considerations .
Equitable considerations bear on the decision to refer an
enforcement action when a SIP revision is pending with the Region.
Since no court has held that EPA should be barred from seeking
injunctive relief when a SIP revision is pending, it may, in
appropriate circumstances, be desirable to refer an action for
injunctive relief. For example, if imminent and substantial
endangerment to health exists in any jurisdiction, including the
Fifth Circuit, enforcement should be undertaken regardless of the
status of the SIP revision.
Additional equitable factors which bear on the decision to
refer a case include the actual SIP revision review period, the
timing of the SIP revision submittal in relation to any preliminary
enforcement procedures (i.e., whether the submittal appears to be
a dilatory tactic), the source’s ability to comply with the
applicable SIP without great expense and difficulty, and the
cooperation of the source in providing accurate information and
endeavoring to comply with air requirements. Many of the above
factors may pertain to a case. You should evaluate all of these
factors and the source’s willingness to negotiate in assessing
the appropriate enforcement action. We also recommend that you
consult with the Air Enforcement Division and Department of
Tustice before referring a case based only on these equitable
factors.

-------
—8—
Other Considerations
In order to assess a case for referral, the Regional attorneys
will have to consult with the Region’s SIP analysts. We recommend
that your contacts be undertaken with an awareness of the Seventh
Circuit decision in Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. EPA , 638 F.2d 994
(7th Cir. 1980).
The Case Evaluation Sheet with definitions of its data
points has been provided to assist you in ensuring that the
relevant information has been obtained for your evaluation. This
data will be used for national evaluations of all SIP enforcement
cases. We therefore ask that you complete the evaluation form
for all SIP enforcement actions regardless of whether a revision
is pending at the time of referral.
Summary
In summary, we recommend that enforcement be initiated when
1) the source is not in compliance with the pending SIP revision,
2) no SIP revision has been submitted to EPA, 3) the Region has
recommended disapproval of the SIP revision proposal (except for
the Fifth Circuit where final disapproval is needed), or 4)
equitable considerations mandate action. We recommend that a
Region concentrate on these cases rather than cases where a SIP
revision approval is likely, or where the merits of the SIP
revision have not been addressed by the Region.
Our staff will be available to discuss specific cases with
you. We appreciate your assistance in considering these additional
factors in your case evaluation. Please contact us, or Elizabeth
A. Edmorids, Air Enforcement Division, FTS 382—4577, if you have
any questions regarding this policy.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I—X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX

-------
—9—
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Alan Eckert
Office of General Counsel
David Buente, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
Department of Justice
Robert Van Heuvelen, Assistant Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
U.S. Department of Justice

-------
CASE EVALUATION FORM FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) CASES
1. SOURCE NAME: _________________________________________
2. SOURCE LOCATION: ______________________________________
3. REGION: ___________________
4. FEDERAL COURT: CIRCUIT ____________ DISTRICT __________
SIP REVISION
5. HAS A PROPOSED SIP REVISION BEEN SUBMITTED TO EPA? ________
6. IF NOT, A) DOES THE REGION BELIEVE THAT THE STATE HAS GENERIC
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE TYPE OF REVISION AT ISSUE?* __________
B) DOES THE STATE BELIEVE THAT IT HAS GENERIC AUTHORITY TO
APPROVE THE TYPE OF REVISION AT ISSUE?
7. IF A SIP REVISION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY EPA, IS IT A FORMAL
SUBMITTAL? ___________ OR IS IT INFORMATIONAL? ___________
8. IF IT IS A FORMAL SUBMITTAL, HAS THE DETERMINATION OF
COMPLETENESS BEEN MADE? _______________
9. IF COMPLETE, PROVIDE DATE RECEIVED. ______________________
10. IF INCOMPLETE, A) WAS IT RETURNED TO THE STATE? ___________
DATE RETURNED: _____________________ B) WAS A NOTICE OF
DISAPPROVAL, BASED ON INCOMPLETE SUBMITTAL, PUBLISHED IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER ? __________ DATE PUBLISHED: _____________
11. IS SIP REVISION APPROVAL LIKELY? ________________________
* If the answer is yes, no further questions should be answered.
If the answer is no, no further questions should be answered
after 6B.

-------
—2—
12. DOES TIlE SOURCE COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSED SIP REVISION?
13. STATUS OF SIP REVISION SUBMITTED TO EPA:
STATUS OUTCOME DATE
(Approval/Disapproval)
PROPOSAL TO HO _______________
PROPOSAL TO 0MB _______________
PROPOSAL PUBLISHED ______________
FINAL TO REGION ______________
FINAL TO HQ ______________
FINAL TO 0MB
FINAL PUBLISHED _______________
ENFORCEMENT
14. DATE CS) RECEIVED VIOLATION INFORMATION: —
and TYPES OF INFORMATION RECEIVED: _______
15. DATE(S) OF NOTICE(S) OF VIOLATION: ______
DATE(S) OF NOTICE(S) OF NONCOMPLIANCE:
EQU ITABLE CONS I DERAT IONS
16. WHAT RELIEF DOES EPA SEEK? ______________
PENALTY: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:

-------
—3—
17. Is THERE AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT TO PUBLIC
HEALTH? _________________
DESCRIBE:
18. POLLUTION INFORMATION:
(a) MAJOR SOURCE: ____________________
(b) VOLUME OF EMISSIONS: Ci) ACTUAL EMISSIONS: _________TPY
(ii) ALLOWED EMISSIONS: _________TPY
(c) TYPE OF POLLUTANT: ________________________________
(d) EXTENT OF VIOLATION: (1) ACTUAL EMISSIONS: __________
(ii) EMISSION LIMITATION:
(e) NONATTAINMENT AREA: ___________________
(f) EXTENSION AREA: _____________________
19. ESTIMATE COST OF COMPLIANCE OPTIONS: ____________________
20. COOPERATION BY THE SOURCE
(a) IS SOURCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING SIP? ___________
(b) IS SOURCE SEEKING ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF RESOLVING THE
NONCOMPLIANCE? _______________________
21. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS:

-------
—1—
DEFINITIONS FOR CASE EVALUATION FORM FOR SIP CASES
1. Name of company/entity violating the Clean Air Act.
2. City, County and State where source is located.
3. EPA Region
4. (See attached list of Circuit Courts)
SIP REVISION
5—12. Self—explanatory
13. Indicate whether the revision has been formally recommended for
approval or disapproval and the date of the decision or
publication.
ENFORCEMENT
14. List dates EPA received information of violation(s) and
indicate whether information was provided by the source or
an air pollution control agency, or as a result of an
inspection by EPA.
15. Self—explanatory.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
5—17. Self—explanatory.

-------
—2—
POLLUTION INFORMATION
18(a). A Class A Source; including Class Al: Any stationary source
whose actual or potential emissions while operating at design
capacity equal at least 100 tons per year, and Class A2: Any
stationary source whose uncontrolled emissions while operating
at design capacity are at least 100 tons per year of any
regulated pollutant.
(b)(i). Annual tons per year of a regulated pollutant actually emitted
by the source
(ii). Annual tons per year of a regulated pollutant, permitted by
applicable SIP
(c). Self—explanatory
(d)(i). Actual measurement of emission level of regulated pollutant.
eg. _____ pounds per gallon excluding water, of VOCs
(ii). SIP authorized limit of emission level of regulated pollutant.
(e). An area which as calculated by air quality modeling exceeds
any national ambient. air quality standard for an air pollutant.
(f). Is the source located in a noriattainment area which has an
extension until December 31, 1987, to attain the national
primary standard for photochemical oxidants and/or carbon
monoxide?
19—21. Self—explanatory.

-------
§ il. Number and composition o( circwte
T ..:: . c rcu.ts 01 the United Sutes
are consLtLted s fouows.
Circuits
t C:urr.Oi
“St
Composition
C,st ct of Coturn .a
Mau c, Massacrusetis. New MamD•
snire, Puerto Rico. Rhode (stand.
Connecticut New York. Vern o .
De’aware. ‘ . ‘ . Jersey. Penneylva-
nia. Virg. Islands
Maryland. North Carolina. South
Carolina. Virgima, SVeet V rgin.
La
Fifth District or the Canal Zone. Louisi-
ana. Mu.stsstppi. Texas.
St’th Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio. Tennes.
see.
Seventh Il linois, Indiana. SVisccnarn.
Cightit Arkansas. Iowa. Mrnnesota. Mis•
souri. Nebraska, North Dakota.
South Dakota.
Ninth Maska, Arizona, California. Idaho.
Montana. Nevada, Oregon,
Washrngtca. Guam, Kawau.
Tenth Colorado, Kansas. New Mex’co.
Oklahoma. Utah. \Vyomtni
Eleventh Alabama. Flords. Georgia.
Federal All Federal judicial districts
As amended Oct. 31. 105 1. c 655, 34. 65 Stat. 2 ’ Oct.
14 1980. Pub L. D6—452. 2. 94 Stat. 1994. Apr. .
Pub L.. 91—164. Title I, 101. 96 Stat. 25.)
29 U.S.C.
ecc’nd
Thiro
Fc iurtn

-------
itO !J4,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I
pqØ1% ’
C’/ 23 1 7
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Settling Enforcement Actions In Clean Air Act
Jonattajnment Areas Against Stationary Air Sources
Which Will Not Be In Compliance By The Applicable
Attainment Date
FROM: Thomas L. Adams, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Addressees
This memorandum lists special factors to be Considered,
and requirements to be imposed, in settling enforcement actions
in Clean Air Act nonattajnment areas against sources that will
not be in compliance by the applicable attainment date. These
requirements apply where the source is violating emission limita-
tions for the pollutant(s) for which the area has been designated
nonattainment. These requirements, which supplement those of
other general policy, are appropriate because these sources are
continuing to illegally contribute to the nonattainment status
of the area after the date that attainment was supposed to have
been reached. The policy observes that shutdown by the specific
attainment date may be the appropriate relief in some cases,
but lists factors and requirements in considering whether an
expeditious compliance schedule going beyond the attainment date
may be appropriate in others.
This memorandum affects actions under Section 113(b) of the
Clean Air Act in nonattajnment areas where the area was to have
attained by December 31, 1982. It supersedes the September 20,
1982 policy titled “Enforcement Action Against Stationary Air
Sources Which Will Not Be In Compliance By December 31, 1982.11
It also applies to those sources in areas which are projected to,
but will fail to, reach attainment by December 31, 1987. Finally,
the policy applies to areas with attainment dates set beyond
December 31, 1987 which pass without attainment. No such areas
in the last category currently exist but we expect that new
attainment dates will be set for certain areas.
r
7,

-------
—2—
Legal Issues
The Clean Air Act requires areas to plan for attainment
of the primary ambient air quality standards for criteria
pollutants (e.g. ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,
particulate matter) by December 31, 1982. Certain ozone
and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas received extensions
until December 31, 1987 pursuant to Section 172 of the Act.
Many sources are unlikely to achieve timely compliance by
even this later date. Sources which are out of compliance
beyond the attainment date in a nonattainment area not only
violate the specific state regulation but also contribute to
the area’s continuing nonattainment status. This contribution
becomes an important factor to consider in enforcement efforts
against these sources.
Our view that a shutdown of the source Is not necessarily
mandatory in all cases is based on the view that a district
court generally has equity power to fashion relief that allows
a source in violation of an environmental statute to continue
in operation while taking steps to come into compliance. 1 ! The
Supreme Court has been careful to point out that the fult scope
of the courts’ discretion should be recognized in the absence
of Congressional intent to the contrary. 4 ! Our review of the
Clean Air Act and the legislative history convinced us that
Congress did not intend to limit the courts’ traditional dis-
cretion and thus depart from established principles. Of course,
some courts may decide, independent of EPA’S view, to shut a
source down. Recognizing that a court may or may not accept
EPA’s recommendation, this policy sets forth criteria to deter-
mine the specific equitable relief the Agency should seek in
such cases.
1 Weinberger v. Romero—Barcelo , 456 U.S. 305 (1982). See also
Amoco Production Co . v. Village of Gambell , No. 85—1239, slip
op. at 9 and 10 (U.S.S.C. March, 1987).
2 Congrea& did limit the district courts’ equitable power
regarding sources which had obtained relief under the Steel
Industry Co pliarice Extension Act of 1981 (“SICEA”). EPA has
always argued that the December 31, 1985 deadline in that Act
is absolute except in a few very limited situations involving
force inajeure. That position was recently supported by dictum
in U.S . v. Wheeling Pittsburgh , No. 86—3456, slip op. at 15
(3rd dr. May 18, 1987), where the court stated, “It is evident
therefore from the language of the statute and its legislative
history that Congress placed great significance ,on the [ SICEA]
compliance dates and intended to limit, if not entirely eliminate,
the district courts’ equitable discretion to extend compliance.”

-------
—3—
Threshold Criteria To Evaluate Extension of Non—Compliance
As a general rule, the goal of any EPA enforcement action
against a source in a primary rionattainment area is to bring
the source into compliance as expeditiously as possible, but no
later than the approved attainment date. EPA will not recommend
entry of a consent decree that allows the source to remain in
operation and out of compliance beyond the attainment date
unless, at a minimum, all of the following threshold criteria
are met: 1) the source must be j j able to comply by the attainment
date other than by shutdown , 2) the source must demonstrate
that t hi e i — p11 flJc iñ zest in its cofltiflU _ pn
which outweighs the environmental cost of an additional period
of noncompliance, 3) if there is any doubt about the source’s
financial condition, the source must demonstrate that it will
h _ suffici ni- fiintic to be able to comply expeditiously , and
4) the source must be, and must have been, underta ii good
faith efforts to comply.
The following is a more complete discussion of each of the
criteria.
Criterion 1 - Inability to Comply by Attainment Date
This evaluation must conclude that the source is physically
unable to install controls by the attainment date. This conclusion
should be fully documented. Financial constraints which prevent
a company from moving quickly to comply should not play a role
here.
Criterion 2 — Public Interest and Environmental Costs
The determination of public interest must be made on a
case-by—case basis and shoi4d include consideration, at a
minimum, of the type of business, the magnitude of excess
emissions, the amount of time needed to comply, the public ser-
vice nature of the source (e.g. hospitals, electric utilities),
the adverse public consequences which would result from closure
(e.g., significant unemployment impact), and the impact on
public health and welfare. The burden is on the source to
provide inforLation on the benefits of its continued operation
and to show that those benefits outweigh the environmental cost
of an additional period of noncompliance. We expect that in
some cases the Agency will not find the public benefit sufficient
and will not agree to continued operation beyond the attainment
date based on this criterion.

-------
-4--
Criterion 3 — Financial Condition of Source
Regional Administrators should exercise judgment to determine
whether sufficient uncertainty exists as to the healthy financial
status of the source to warrant a detailed economic analysis.
This analysis should determine whether the source can pay for
the pollution control equipment. Headquarters has the technical
support, primarily through its “ABEL,” computer model, to assist
in making this determination. The lack of ability to pay for
the pollution control equipment in this case will not merely
affect the penalty requested by EPA but should result in the
shutdown of the source. If .a purce is not financially able to
coinp] te anj editious control _ 9gram, then it should not be
aiJ.ow dt . perate_with
Expeditious compliance is a key requirement for continued
operation.
Criterion 4 - Prior Good Faith Efforts To Comply
Finally, you must determine whether the source has been
and is currently undertaking good faith efforts to comply with
applicable emissions standards. In most cases, the sources
have been aware of the state requirements for a number of
years and so “good faith’ 1 must be manifested by actual efforts
that have been reasonably effective. Although in some cases
there may be an overriding interest in continued operation of
the source under an expeditious compliance schedule, generally a
prior history of disregard for environmental obligations should
militate against further extensions.
We wish to emphasize that this policy should not be seen
a general invitation to renegotiate consent decrees. Sources
which have already made a commitment, in the settlement of an
enforcement action, to come into compliance by the attainment
date or sooner should be required to do so unless the relevant
circumstances clearly and convincingly warrant a modification.
In cases where a consent decree already exists, EPA should
file a contempt action if the source is violating the terms
of the existing decree.
Specific l quirements for a Consent Decree Allowing
Post—Atta 1 ent Date Compliance
The terms of general policy on consent decrees must be
followed. 1 ! In addition, the Agency should insure, at a
minimum, that the decree incorporates the following elements
(some of which are listed to reemphasize certain of the
general policy requirements).
/ This guidance titled “Guidance For Drafting Judicial
Consent Decrees,” issued on October 19, 1983, is GM #17 in
the General Enforcement Policy Compendium of the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring.

-------
—5—
1) The source commits to comply with requirements for
at least Reasonably Available Control Technology (“RACT”) if
no Part D plan is in force where one is reauired. The consent
decree should indicate that RACT limitations acceptable to
EPA remain in effect and that the court retains jurisdiction
to enforce this provision until such time as a Part D plan
satisfying the requirements of Section 172 is approved by EPA
and becomes effective. Then the source may apply to the
Court for a modification of the decree to conform with the
approved requirements.
2) The compliance schedule contains enforceable increments
of progress.
3) The consent decree requires interim emission limitations
and controls to the extent possible. Emission reductions,
while not mandated in every case, should be required where
possible.
4) The consent decree includes monitoring requirements.
5) The consent decree includes reporting requirements,
including timely reportir g to EPA of the completion of each
increment in the schedule.
6) The consent decree provides for stipulated penalties.
At a minimum, these penalties should apply to failure to
implement interim controls, failure to meet increments of
progress In the compliance schedule, and failure to demonstrate
final compliance.
7) The consent decree contains provisions preventing
increases of emissions from the source. However, production
increases may be allowed so long as emissions per unit of
production are decreased. This will allow a company to
respond to increased business while at the some time providing
an additional, incentive to reduce emissions.
8)—The consent decree requires payment of a significant
cash civil penalty. The general Clean Air Act Stationary
Source Civil Penalty Policy (“Penalty Policy”) of course
applies.!,’ The fact that the area is nonattainment beyond
the attainment date should be viewed as an aggravating factor
under Section III.E. of the Penalty Policy and should result
in a higher gravity component.
/ The current “Penalty Policy” was issued March 25, 1987 and
will replace the policy issued September 12, 1984 found at
V(y) in the Clean Air Act Compliance/Enforcement Guidance
Manual —— Compendium of Operative Policies.

-------
-.6-
9) The con8ent decree explicitly reserves the right to
seek further injunctive relief, including shutdown of the
facility, if the source does not comply with the order.
10) Source compliance extensions beyond the attainment
date are not allowed for sources which a company does not
intend to control. The CAA requires expeditious shutdown of
these sources. 4 ! Expeditious shutdown applies only if the
company is not building a replacement facility. If the company
is replacing the existing unit and commits to commencing and
completing construction of the new facility as expeditiously
as practicable, then EPA may agree to delay shutdown of the
violating source until the replacement facility is constructed
and operable, provided that the other criteria in the “shutdown”
policy and this policy are met. In implementing this approach
the Region will need to consider the effect of any Clean Air
Act sanctions which may limit construction of new facilities
in the area.
11) Compliance through use of low-solvent technology is
still governed by the August 6, 1986 “Policy on the Availability
of Low-Solvent Technology Schedules in Clean Air Act Enforcement
Actions,” except that the statement in that policy requiring
compliance by the end of 1987 is modified by the present
policy.
Deferral to State Action
The principles set forth in this memorandum should also
be used in conjunction with “timely and appropriate” guidelines
to evaluate the adequacy of state administrative or judicial
enforcement action addressing these sources.j
4j See the “Clean Air Act Enforcement Policy Respecting
ources Complying By Shutdown,” issued November 27. 1985
found in the Clean Air Act Compliance/Enforcement Guidance
Manual- - Compendium of Operative Policies at Part I (L).
5/ See “Guidance on ‘Timely and Appropriate’ EPA/State Enforcement
Response for Significant Air Violators” issued June 28, 1984
found in th. Clean Air Act Compliance/Enforcement Guidance
Manual -- Compendium of Operative Policies at Part 1(I).

-------
—7-
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions t, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V

-------
.,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP 2 3 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
FROM: .3. Craig Potter 7’ /_ ‘ /
Assistant Administrator ,,7t
for Air and Radiationf’ I 7
Thomas L. Adams Jr. -‘cr - L• L.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Francis S. Blak
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
TO: Addressees
One critical function that your offices perform is to
assure that regulations developed for stationary sources
by the States under the Clean Air Act are enforceable and
legally sufficient. Our regulations require that the state
implementation plans (“SIPs”) must “be adopted as rules and
regulations enforceable (emphasis added) by the State agency”
(40 C.F.R. §51.281 (1987)). We are concerned that review of
SIPS for enforceability has not been receiving adequate atten-
tion. The Agency sometimes experiences difficulties in its
efforts to enforce the current rules because they are not
sufficiently clear. The Regional Offices are at the forefront
of the federal SIP approval process. The purpose of this
memorandum is to remind you of the importance of doing the
review necessary to assure that all SIP plans and revisions
are enforceable and in conformance with the Act. Please do not
forward for approval SIPS which fail to satisfy the enforce-
ability criteria in this memorandum.
Background
Recent information indicates that the attention being paid
to SIP approvals is declining, particularly for enforceability.
The Office of General Counsel reviews regulatio’ns as to their
adequacy under applicable law and Agency policy, but not for
enforceability. This void is not being filled by other offices.
Often, the problems with enforcing the regulations are not
immediately obvious and only become known where a case or issue
focuses on the particular requlation. At the October 1986

-------
—2—
Annapolis meeting of Air Program Directors and Regional Counsel
Air Branch Chiefs, a number of problems in recent enforcement
cases due to difficulty in interpreting and enforcing regula-
tions were discussed. With the recent work being done to
address the nonattainment problem, it is even more critical
that regulations be clear and enforceable.
It is appropriate that the Regional air compliance staff
and the Regional Counsel’s Office have primary responsibility
for this enforceability review because they have the most direct
experience in compliance and rule interpretation. They also
have resources allocated through their workload models specifi-
cally for SIP review.
Timing of Review
The Regions should try to review developing State SIP
provisions prior to final approval by the State, when the
provisions are at their most malleable stage. In line with
this, each Region should provide its States with a copy of the
implementing guidance associated with this memorandum and a
briefing which outlines the enforceability requirements for new
SIP submittals. If we provide the States with more explicit
guidance and make earlier contacts to resolve problems, we can
avoid instances where EPA is pressured to settle for a flawed
regulation only because it is better than its predecessor.
Enforceability Criteria
Your review should ensure that the rules in question are
clearly worded and explicit in their applicability to the
regulated sources. Vague, poorly defined rules must become a
thing of the past. SIP regulations that deviate from this
policy are to be disapproved pursuant to Section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act, with appropriate references in the C.F.R. Speci-
fically, we are concerned that the following issues be directly
addressed. •The rule should be clear as to who must comply and
by what date. The effect, if any, of changed con ‘itions (e.g.,
redesignation to attainment) should be set forth. The period
over which compliance is determined and the relevant test
method to be used should be exphcitly noted. Provisions which
exempt facilities under certain sizes or emission levels must
identify explicitly how such size or level is determined.
Also, provisions which allow for “alternate equivalent techniques”
or “bubbles” or any other sort of variation of the normal mode
of compliance must be completely and explicitly defined and must
make clear whether or not EPA case—by—case approval is required
to make such a method of compliance federally effective.

-------
—3—
Con ci u sn
SIP revisions should be written clearly, with explicit
language to implement their intent. The plain language of all
rules, as well as the related Federal Register notices, should
be complete, clear and consistent with the intended purpose of
th rules. Specific review for enforceability will be a further
step in improving the overall SIP process and structure.
We have attached detailed guidance to assist you in
implementing this memorandum.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air Compiiance Branch Chiefs
Regions I L, III, IV, V, VI, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I—X
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

-------
—4—
cc: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Air Division
Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division

-------
O
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
0’
SEP23 1987
ME MOR AND U r
SUBJECT: Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Suffici ncy
FROM: Michael S. Alushin 1.
Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Air Enforcement
Alan W. Eckert
Associate Gener Counsel
Air and Radiation Division
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Cornplia i is on
Office of Air Quality Pla ing and Standards
TO: Addressees
This is to provide implementing guidance on the memorandum
issued by J. Craig Potter, Thomas Adams and Francis Blake
on this date relating to review of SIP plans and revisions
for enforceability and legal sufficiency. We urge you to
provide copies of these memoranda to your State Agency Directors.
ppiicab i ii ty
This guidance applies to all SIP proposals which have
not completed the state or local agency legal and procedural
requirements for SIPs. For proposals that have riot yet
been submitted to the Regional office for action, the state
and local agencies have forty—five (45) days from the date
of this guidance to submit such proposals for review in order
for the proposal to be considered under previous procedures.
SIP packages currently in Headquarters will undergo the usual
review but will be returned to the Regions if they contain
deficiencies which raise significant cuestions as to whether
the regulation would be enforceable.
Enforceability Criteria
The notion of enforceability encompasses several concepts.
At the most basic level, a regulation must be within the statutory
authority of the promulgating agency. For example, some states
have statutory restrictions or prohibitions on the promulgation
of regulations more restrictive than the federal counterpart.

-------
—2—
Although we should generally defer to a State’s interpretation of
the scope of Its authority, when there is real doubt we
should, at a minimum, consult the responsible State Attorney to
be certain the Issue has been considered and resolved. When
appropriate, an opinion letter should be obtained from the
State Attorney General.
Please ensure that the following additional issues are
directly addressed.
Applicability
It should be clear as to whom the regulation applies. The
SIP should include a description of the types of affected
facilities. The rule should also state in which areas the rule
applies (entire state, specific counties, nonattainment, etc.)
and advise the reader that State administrative changes require
a formal SIP revision. Also, some regulations might require a
certain percentage reduct.ion from sources. The regulation
should be clear as to how the baseline from which such a reduction
is to be accomplished is set. In some cases it may be necessary
for enforcement purposes and independent of Clean Air Act
requirements for the SIP to include an inventory of allowable
and actual emissions from sources In the affected categories in
order to set the above baseline.
0 Time
The regulation should specify the recuired date of
compliance. Is it upon promulgation, or approval by EPA, or a
future date certain? Future effective dates beyond the
approved or proposed attainment date should not be allowed
unless the related emissions reductions are not needed for
attainment. Also, the regulation should specify the Important
dates required of any compliance schedule which is required to
be submitted by the source to the state.
o Effect of Changed C riditions
If changed circumstances effect an emission limit or other
requirement the effect of changed conditions should be clearly
specified. However, you should not approve state requlatioris
which tie the applicability of VOC control requirements to the
nonattairiment status of the area and allow for automatic nullifi-
cation of the regulations if the area is redesignated to an
attainment status. Such regulations should continue to apply
if an area is redesignated from nonattainment to attainment
status unless a new maintenance demonstration supporting a change
in the rule’s applicability is submitted and approved by EPA.

-------
—3—
° Standard of Conduct
The regulation must be sufficiently specific so that a
source is fairly on notice as to the standard it must meet.
For example, “alternative equivalent technique” provisions
should not be approved without clarification concerning the
time period over which equivalency is measured as well as
whether the equivalency applies on a per source or per line
basis or is facility wide.
o Incorporation by Reference
Some federal regulations are inappropriate for adoption
by reference. For example, a state intending to enforce PSD
regulations adopted by reference must adopt 40 C.F.R. §52.21,
not 40 C.F.R. §51.166, as only the former is written in a form
imposing obligations on permit applicants. Even then, changes
may have to be made to take into account the difference between
the State’s situation and EPA’S.
o Transfer Efficiency
Some states have attempted to provide particular VOC
sources with relaxations of compliance limits in return for
improvements in the efficiency with which the sources use the
pollutant producing material. Any rules allowing transfer
efficiency to be used in determining compliance must be explicit
as to when and under what circumstances a source may use improved
transfer efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit.
Such provisions must state whether EPA approval is required on
a case—by—case basis. Also, such provisions may not simply
reference the NSPS auto coating tables for the transfer
efficiency. The improvement should be demonstrated through
testing and an appropriate test method should be set forth.
Implied improvements nàted by the NSPS auto coating TE
table are not to be accepted at face value.
0 Compliance Periods
SIP rules should describe explicitly the compliance time
frame associated with each emission limit (e.g. instantaneous,
stack test, 3 hour average or daily). The egions s ,ou1d not
assume that a lack of specificity implies instantaneous compliance.
The time frame or method employed must be sufficient to protect
the standard involved.
Equivalency Provisions and Discretionary Emission Limits
Certain provisions allow sources to comply via “bubbles”
or “alternate e 7uivalent techniaues” or through mechanisms
“as approved by the Director.” These provisions must make it

-------
-.4—
clear as to whether EPA approval of state granted alternative
compliance techniques is required on a case—by—case basis in
order for the changed mode of compliance to replace the existing
federally enforceable requirement. If EPA case—by—case approval
will not be required, then specific, objective and replicable
criteria must be set forth for determining whether the new
arrangement is truly equivalent in terms of emission rates and
ambient impact. Such procedures must be consistent with the
control levels specified in the overall SIP control strategy
and must meet other EPA policy requirements, including the
“Emissions Trading Policy”, 51. Fed. Reg. 43814 (1986), in
relevant instances.
Recordkeeping
The SIP must state explicitly those records which sources
are required to keep to assess compliance for the time frame
specified in the rule. Records must be commensurate with regula-
tory requirements, and must be available for examination on
request. The SIP must give reporting schedules and reporting
formats. For example, these rules must require daily records
if the SIP requires daily compliance. Additionally, the record—
keeping must be required such that failure to do so would be a
separate violation in itself.
o Test Methods
Each compliance provision must list how compliance is
to be determined and the appropriate test method to be used.
The allowable averaging times should be explicit. Both the
test method and averaging times employed must be sufficient
to protect the ambient standard involved.
o Exemptions
If sources under a certain size are exempted from control
recuirements, the regulation must identify how the size of a
particular source is to be determined.
o Malfunction and Variance Provisions
Any malfunction or variance exemptions must be clear in
their substantive application and ii how they are triggered.
The rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the
standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination.
Conclusion
We appreciate your attention to this matter and hope
that the specific review for enforceability will be a further
step in improving the overall SIP process and structure.
To assist you, we have attached an enforceability checklist.
This checklist should be included as part of your technical
support packages in all future SIP packages.

-------
—5—
Please contact the appropriate staff attorney in the Office
of General Counsel or the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring should you have any questions concerning issues of
enforceability in particular instances. Please contact Tom
Helms, OAQPS, FTS—629—5526, for other questions concerning
implementation of this guidance.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsels
Regions i-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I , III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VU, VIII and X
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions t—x
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards

-------
Attachment:
- APPOVABI LITY CHECKLIST- ENFORCEABI 1 ,171
SIP Pack e No. -- Date Rec. - Date Due -
STATE: _________________________________
Subject Matter:
(Specific Provision and Description)
Enforceability Analysis State Submittal EPA Requir ent Approvability (Approvable or Not)
( list resixnses) -
1. Applicability
a. What sources are being Clarity
regulated?
b. What are criteria for Clarity
exempt ion?
C. Is calculation Example calculation or
procedure for exemption clear explanation of
clearly specified? how to determine
exemption (line by line,
etc.)
d. is emission inventory Inventory including
listed in the allowable and actual
background document emissions in source
of the attainment category should be
demonstration? included, for enforce-
ment purposes and
Independent of any Clean
Air Act requirements,
in the attainment demon-
stration if such data is
necessary for deterrniri—
ing baselines in requla—
t ions.

-------
Enforceability nalysis
State Submittal EPA Reauir iient
pnrovabiJity (Ap rovable or Nol
e. Is the averaging time(s)
used in the rule differ-
ent from that of the
ambient standard?
f. What are the units of
compliance (lbs VOC per
gallon of solids
applied less water,
grains per standard
cubic foot?)
g. Is buhbling or averag-
ing of any type
allowed? If yes,
state criteria.
Could a U.S. EPA
inspector independently
determine if the
criteria were met? Does
EPA have to approve
each case?
The averaqing time in the
rule must be consistent
with protecting the ambient
standard in question.
Normally, it should be equal
to or shorter than the
time associated with the
standard. Longer term
averaging is available
only in limited instances
provided that the ambient
standard is not compromised.
Clearly
rule
stated in the
Explicit description of
how averaging, butblinq,
or equivalency is to be
determined. VOC
eauivalency must be on
a “solids applied”
basis. Any method must
be independently re-
producible. Provision
must be explicit as to
whether EPA case—by—
case approval reQuired.
If provision intended
to be “generic” then EPA
bubble policy must be
met.

-------
rceabilitv Analysis
State Submittal EPA Reciuir nent
Approvability( sable or Not:
h. If there is a redesigna-.
tion, will this change
the emission limita—
Lions? If yes, which
ones and how?
2. Compliance Dates
Regulation may not
automatically allow for
self nullification upon
redesignation of area
to attainment. New
maintenance deimx stra—
tion required in order
to drop regulation.
a. What is
date?
b. What is
date?
compliance
the attainment
Must not be later than
approved or about to
be approved date of
attainment unless
emission reductions not
necessary for attain-
ment. In some cases,
it will be necessary
for the regulation to
specify dates in compli-
ance schedules that are
required to be subnitted
by source to stat!.
3. SpecifIcity of Conduct
a. What test method is
required?
b. What Is the averaging
time in compliance
test method?
c. Is a compliance
calculation or
evaluation required?
(i.e., daily weighted
average for VOC).
d. If yes to “c,” list
the formula, period of
compliance, and/or
va1,i I-ir n
Test method must be
explicitly stated.
Averaging time and
application of limit
must be explicit.
Formula must be
explicit.

-------
Enforceability Analysis
State Submittal EPA Requirement
Aoorovabilitv (A provable or Not
4.
Incorporation by Reference
a. What is state authority
for rulemaking?
b. Are methods/rules
incorporated by
reference in the
right manner.
5. Recordkeeping
a. What records are
required to determine
compliance?
b. In what form or units
(lbs/gal, gr/dscf,
etc.) must the
records be kept? On
what time basis
(instantaneously,
hourly, daily)?
c. Does the rule affirm-
atively reauire the
records be kept?
Records to be kept
must be consistent
with units of
compliance in the per-
formance requirements,
including the appli-
cable time period.
There must be a clear
separately enforceable
provision that requires
records to be kept.
Clarity

-------
Enforceability Analysis State Submittal EPA Reauirement Approvability (Approvable or Not: )
6. Exemptions
a. List any exemptions Must be clearly defined
allowed, and distinguishable from
what constitutes a
b. Is the criteria for violation.
application clear?
7. Malfunction Provisions Rule must specify what
exceedances may be
excused, how the
standard is to be
applied, and who makes
the determination.

-------
• 11 iEO St 4 ,
cFi
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
I p 110 t. -
SEP I I 1007 OFFICE OF
I I AI ItA$OP.ADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reporting Requirements and Supplemental Guidance:
Small VOC Source Complian e Strateg
PROM: John S. Seitz, Directo
Stationary Source Comp ‘ance Division
Office of Air Quality lanning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Attached please find the reporting requirements and
supplemental guidance for the Small VOC Source Compliance
Strategy issued July 6, 1987.
The reporting r quirements have been added to the
program so that SSCD can monitor the implementation of the
strategy, follow the progress of small VOC sources towards
compliance, and act as a clearinghouse for dissemination of
transferable compliance promotion information. Attachment 1
details the due dates and data to be forwarded to SSCD.
The supplemental guidance expands upon the basic information
appearing in the strategy. As explained, a nontraditional
three step approach has been developed involving compliance
promotion, selected inspections and enforcement. The traditional

-------
—2—
compliance approach of inspection, violation detection and
timely resolution is difficult to apply to small VOC sources.
There are far too many sources and the costs to achieve
compliance could outweigh the benefits. Since compliance
promotion is very different than our traditional approach,
some additional explanation is required. We have attached
supplemental guidance addressing this component of the stratecy
( ttachment 2).
Compliance promotion consists of State and local agencies
(along with EPA Regional Offices) implementing a campaign to
ensure that small sources and the general public are aware of
the program and understand the VOC air quality requirements.
The exact nature of the compliance promotion campaign will
depend on the methods of information dissemination that exist
for the small VOC source category being addressed. In any
case, a compliance promotion campaign should be inexpensive,
use mass media techniques for information dissemination, track
sources b ’ name and address, inform them of their regulatory
responsibilities in a comprehensible, practical manner, and
reinforce the air pollution control agency’s intentions by
using the public media (e.g., TV, newspaper, radio, etc.) to
educate the Public.
Some suggested techniques fo r approaching small VOC
sources may be found in Appendix A and B of the strategy and
are supplemented by Attachment 2 of this memorandum.
If you desire further guidance or have any questions or
comments, please contact Bob Marshall at FTS 382—2862.
Attachments
cc: Workgroup Members

-------
ATTACHMENT 1
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
To ensure timely implementation and to secure the necessary
statistics, each Region conducting a small VOC source program
should provide periodic reports in writing to the Director of
SSCD. The data collected during this effort will he used to
develop improved compliance statistics on selected small VOC
source categories and to determine if and where small sources
are serious impediments to ozone NAAQS attainment.
Due Date Information Required
September 30, 1987 List the source categories selected
in each of the targeted ozone
nonattainment areas in your
Region. Also, provide a short
description of any other small
VOC source activities planned
in FY 88.
April 1, 1988 A) A sjiort description of compliance
promotion activities, selected
inspections and enforcement actions
planned and conducted to date.
Include a CDS printout of the 27
(minimum) targeted sources, listing
SNME, STRT, CYNM, STAB, ZIPC, PCMS,
PCLS, PLLT, ATPE, DTSC, DTAC.
For large numbers of sources
subject to compliance promotion
activities, provide total number
contacted or planned to be contacted
by category in each area. SSCD
will issue under separate cover
examples of report formats to be
followed in sending this information
to us.
B) A description of any information
or approaches that may assist
other Regions.
September 1, 1988 Final results of your efforts.
Provide the same information as
the mid—year report but updated.

-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SMALL VOC SOURCE COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE - COMPLIANCE PROMOTION
The general thrust of compliance promotion is explained
in the main body of the strategy on pages 3—5. Appendix D of
the strategy contains hypothetical examples for the categories
of service station stage I and degreasers.
To investigate what other approaches might be most effective,
SSCD arranged to have National Analysts conduct TM focus group”
interviews with owner/operators of three types of small
sources: service stations stage I, miscellaneous metal parts
coaters and dry cleaners in the cities of Philadelphia,
Houston and Los Angeles. Combining the summarized results of
these projects with research into specific local area needs
make apparent what compliance promotion techniques would be
most effective for small VOC sources in general. Some of
National Analysts’ findings are as follows. For further
information on the National Analysts study, contact Bob Marshall
at FTS 382—2862.
SERVICE STATIONS STAGE I
Advisory Inspections
Present research indicates that gasoline handlers are
rarely informed about or understand the rationale for an air
pollution control agency’s involvement in stage I controls.
At present, retailers perceive there are neither penalties
nor incentives for aggressively maintaining vapor balance
systems. Advisory inspections statistically selected can
provide detailed information on possible costs Incurred by
their system’s inefficiencies along with cost—benefit data on
repairs (i.e., similar to home energy audits). However,
please make sure you understand the limits of advice that can
be offered during such inspections.
Cert i ficates
Certification of vapor balance systems meeting applicable
standards would reinforce owners/operators’ motivation while
giving truck drivers confidence that they need riot worry
about delays, spills or short deliveries resulting from
connecting vapor recovery hoses to potentially malfunctioning
systems. This should be offered by local agencies and would
reouire periodic updating. No efforts at first—stage vapor
recovery can fully succeed unless gasoline handlers can be
persuaded that they have no need to release trapped vapors in
order to ensure that truck compartments are fully drained and
delivered to the retailer .

-------
—2—
Pamphlets
Since urban areas have thousands of retail gasoline
outlets, a good way to summarize and explain our concerns
and their legal obligations may be a mass mailing of a simple
brochure. An example of such a brochure for wood stoves is
enclosed. Mailing lists including printed labels can be
inexpensively purchased from “Yellow Pages” vendors.
The need for informational pamphlets explaining EPA
requirements and methods of achieving compliance is strongly
indicated.
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS COATERS
Training
Ultimately, many or most metal coaters will have to change
the types of materials or processes they employ in order to
meet increasingly stringent standa.rds. While some metal
coaters can convert their operations to powder technology,
the most environmentally sound alternative, others must
continue to rely on liquid coatings. Of this latter group,
many can benefit from conversion to water—borne coatings.
Either alternative involves investment in new equipment and
retraining of personnel. Agencies can help metal coaters
with both of these needs, through helpina them arrange training
opportunities through Regional workshops or community/junior
college programs designed to help metal coaters take the most
effective advantage of new technologies.
Advisory Inspections
Metal coaters are generally unclear about what the appli-
cable rules and standards are in their particular locality
and aspect of the industry. A way to clarify this would be
for agencies to do advisory site visits. Problems and solutions
should be discussed. ith plant mahagers and recommendations
made concerning what should be done to comply with applicable
regulations. Such an effort made to clarify misunderstandings
between agency officials and metal coaters, and about what is
expected of each party, would help eliminate questionable
practices. It would also help create a new climate of team
work between regulatory agencies and metal coaters. However,
please check with your Regional Counsel as to the limits of
advice that can be offered.

-------
—3—
DRY CLEANERS
Pamphlet
gencies can elicit dry cleaners’ voluntary compliance
with VOC regulations without resorting to adversarial tactics.
Economic considerations already prompt cleaners to take the
initiative in VOC control , although they are constrained by
the cost of upgrading their plants for maximum efficiency.
Dry cleaners state that they would eagerly cooperate with
environmental agencies if agencies would reciprocate by
cooperating with them. The major complaint among cleaners is
that regulations are not directly communicated to them and
they are generally framed in obtuse, bureaucratic language.
Lack of clear, direct communication makes it difficult or
impossible for the cleaners to figure out which rules apply to
his equipment and what he must do to bring that equipment into
compliance. Hence, an informational pamphlet explaining
methods of achieving compliance would be helpful.
Certificates
Certification of plants meetjng current regulatory
standards would reinforce dry cleaners VOC control efforts and
give them confidence that they will not be subject to unwarranted
sanctions. Similar to other inspection certificates (as for
elevators), the certificate could be offered by local agencies
for a fee and require periodic updating. This would give dry
cleaners a sense of protection against arbitrary penalties
during the period in which the certificate is in force as
long as the terms of the certificate are followed and would
have the additional benefit of relieving the tension between
agencies and dry cleaners associated with random inspection
and imposition of fines. Certificates could stipulate
required upgrading, maintenance schedules and regulations
themselves.
Advisory Inspections
A way to implement effective compliance promotion techniaues
would be for control agency representatives to visit dry
cleaning plants, inspect their equipment and make concrete
recommendations. Again, please be aware there may be limits
as to the advice that can be offered. Check with your Regional
Counsel first. Certified or registered letters from regulatory
agencies would be a second means of providing owners and
managers with official communications.

-------
—4—
Periodic Statewide Seminars
Rumors and uncertainty about proposed changes in VOC
regulations have a destructive effect on relationships between
agencies and dry cleaners and tend to reduce motivation for
voluntary compliance with existing standards. “Outreach”
programs designed to inform cleaners of proposed changes and
provide timely notice of new standards scheduled to go into
effect would have a beneficial effect on this situation.
Mailings to cleaners would be helpful in this regard, but
should be supplemented by Regional meetings. Although they
cannot substitute for direct in—person or mail contact,
Regional meetings would be a good supplementary means by
which agencies could communicate forthcoming changes and give
dry cleaners a sense of participation in the VOC control
process.
SUMMARY
Small VOC source categories may be viewed as two general
types. First, there are those source categories which have
trade associations, industry publications such as newsletters,
or periodic meetings that provide an existirtg formal
communication link. Working with a trade association or
similar communication link will reatly facilitate the
identification, notification, and education of small VOC
sources. Second, there are those source categories that have
no formal communication link within their industry. Sources
in these categories will require individual notification
(such as letters or telephone calls) by the air pollution
control agency, peer pressure, or an environmentally aware
Public to promote a willingness by the source to understand
and comply with their air pollution control obligations.
In general the methods of disseminating infomation to
specific categories will depend on the numbers of sources and
funds available as well a other factors mentioned in Appendix A
of the strategy. Ttte .decision to implement a particular
communications approach should be based on the following
hierarchy:
1) Contact trade associations and manufacturers.
2) Develop and mail informational pamphlets.
3) Perform advisory visits.
4) Arrange seminars and training opportunities.

-------
PN 113-87-07-06-038
itO S?4,
i t -1 U\ITED STATES E VIRO IE T L PROTECT1Or AGE C’
WAsHLN;TOr D.C. 20460
ot
6 JUL 1987
OfRCE OF
AIR AND R DIAT1O
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Small VOC Source Compliance Stra egy— inal
/
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Directo
Office of Air Quality P1 ng and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Attached for your implementation in FY 88 is EPA’s small
VOC source compliance strategy. The strategy provides a
process for identifying voc categories that are dominated by
small sources who are important contributors to ozone
nonattairunent for specific areas. The focus of the strategy
is on the three components of a nontraditional compliance
approach for addressing small VOC sources, i.e., compliance
promotion, statistically derived inspections, and swift
enforcement.
The objectives are to increase the compliance levels of
small VOC sources by improved enforcement presence and by
compliance promotion, to collect compliance information for
assessing the scope of small source emissions contribution
to ozone nonattainment, and to determine the level of effort
needed in subsequent years. The first component of the
strategy can be broadly defined as compliance promotion,
which consists of air pollution control agencies implementing

-------
—2—
a campaign to ensure that small sources and the general public
are aware of the program and understand the VOC air quality
requirements. The second component is a program of randomly—
selected compliance inspections that provide State and local
agencies and EPA with compliance information on small sources,
and establishes a minimum enforcement presence. At least 27
compliance inspections should be conducted for each targeted
VOC source category. The third component of the strategy is
to expeditiously bring small VOC violators back into compliance.
Bringing enforcement actions against small sources may become
a sensitive issue, but enforcement is necessary to maintain
the credibility of our ozone attainment efforts. At this
time, we are not including small VOC violators with those
violators subject to the timely and appropriate guidance,
but we do expect violations by small VOC sources to be resolved
swiftly, i.e., within 120 days.
Implementation of this strategy will be focused on 16
ozone nonattainment areas (areas that have ozone design
values greater than or equal to 0.16 ppm and populations
greater than one million). However, implementation of this
strategy need not and should not be limited to these 16
areas. At least one VOC source category that is dominated by
small sources for each of the 16 areas should be targeted for
a compliance promotion campaign. A minimum of 27 randomly—
selected inspections should be conducted for each selected
category of sources. This effort is part of the FY 88
performance—based air grants.
Comments were received from STAPPA/ALAPCO and State/local
agencies. A number of valid concerns and constructive remarks
were expressed in these comments and have been incorporated
into this final strategy. The chairmen of the enforcement
committees of STAPPA/ALAPCO had major concerns with the
strategy. However, replies by California, New York, Illinois
and Texas demonstrated their desire to implement (or continue)
a small source VOC compliance strategy. For copies of the
original responses, please contact Bob Marshall (FTS—382—2862).
We hope you find the strategy helpful in carrying out this
part of an ozone reduction program. If you have any questions
or comments, please call Howard Wright (FTS—382—5870).
Attachment

-------
— Attachment —
Small VOC Source Compliance Strategy
Purpose
The purpose of this strategy is three fold:
o To begin implementation of the National Ozone Strategy
in nonattairtment areas through enhanced compliance
monitoring and enforcement efforts.
o To focus those efforts on specific small VOC source
categories that appear to directly preclude a nonattain—
ment area from achieving the NAAQS for ozone.
o To develop credible compliance statistics on selected
small VOC source categories to determine if and where
small sources are serious impediments to ozone NAAQS
attainment.
Introduction
One of the most complex challenges facing air pollution
control agencies is achieving nationwide attainment of the
ozone air quality standard. In 1986, the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee concluded, after reviewing the latest
ozone data, that the current short—term health standard had
little or no margin of safety, and that more lasting health
effects might result from long—term exposure. Also, studies
have confirmed that ozone has significantly decreased the
yield of several important agricultural crops, has caused
severe damage to some trees in the West, and is potentially
playing a role in the forest decline in the East.
For these reasons, EPA’S air program has made ozone one
of four top—priority goals. Many urban areas are ozone
nonattainment areas and will remain nonattainment for the
foreseeable future unless additional measures are implemented.
In those areas where the ozone problem is the worst, more
stringent control programs will be required.
To systematically address this need, EPA is developing
a National Ozone Strategy. An important objective of this
strategy is to improve the effectiveness of our existing
regulations and programs. To support this objective, the

-------
—2—
stationary source compliance program is increasing its
compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts in nonattainment
areas. The principal Federal focus to date has been on Class A
VOC sources. Even though substantial progress has been made
to Increase the compliance rates of these large VOC sources,
additional action is required. For nonattainment areas,
addressing the compliance of small VOC sources is the
appropriate next step towards achieving the ozone standard.
In some areas, this effort is already underway. In others,
this strategy will serve as the impetus to initiate action.
Small VOC Source Contribution to the Ozone Problem
A number of VOC source categories are made up of mostly
small sources. A small VOC source is defined as any source
with maximum potential uncontrolled emissions of less than
one hundred tons per year. For the purposes of this document,
a VOC industrial category where greater than 75 percent of
the sources are small, based on the above definition, will be
considered a small source category, and in our judgment,
contribute the vast majority of that category’s voC emissions.
The traditional approach to ensuring compliance of
stationary sources is to inspect all sources of Federal
interest within a reasonable timeframe, to formally report
specific types of violations, and to resolve significant
violations in a timely and appropriate manner. This approach,
which was developed to address a manageable number of large
sources, is impractical for addressing large numbers of small
sources. Consequently, cost—effective nontraditional methods
must be identified and implemented to enhance the compliance
of small sources.
Nontraditional Approach to Small VOC Sources
The strategy to address compliance problems of small VOC
sources will consist of three components. They are: (1)
compliance promotion, (2) selected inspections, and (3) swift
enforcement. Prior to FY 1988, EPA Regional Offices and State!
local air pollution control agencies must decide which ozone
nonattainment areas will require emission reductions from
small VOC source categories. Once these areas are identified,
appropriate small VOC source categories must be targeted for
compliance promotion activities, selected inspections, and
appropriate enforcement action in FY 1988. Also, the compliance
data gathered from these activities will be the basis for an
evaluation of the effectiveness, efficiency, and in fact the
need to continue this strategy.

-------
—3—
The SIP emission inventories should be used to identify
the ozone nonattajnment areas where small VOC sources are
significant contributors to nonattainnient. The emission inven-
tories should provide each VOC source category’s percentage of
the total emission inventory and percentage of the total emission
reduction required to meet the attainment demonstration.
For the purposes of this initial approach, we would like the
strategy to focus on at least one of six small VOC source
categories. Appendix A contains information profiles for
these categories. For every ozone nonattainment area where
one or more of these six small VOC source categories are
significant contributors of VOC emissions, those areas should
be identified as requiring small source compliance activity.
A “significant contributor” of VOC emissions means the category’s
emissions are greater than one percent of the reduction
required to meet the attainment demonstration.
Some nonattainment areas will have many small VOC source
categories that significantly contribute to the emission
inventory but not have adequate resources in FY 1988 to address
each category. Therefore, in FY 1988, as a minimum, for each
nonattainrrient area identified as having potential small VOC
source problems, at least one small VOC source category should
be selected for application of nontraditional approaches . it
need not be one of the six listed in Appendix A. However , we
would appreciate some justification as to why another category
was selected. Such a justification should include evidence
the selected category is dominated by small sources and its
emissions are greater than one percent of the reduction required
to meet the attainment demonstration.
1. Compliance Promotion Campaign
The first component of the nontraditional approach to
ensuring compliance of small VOC sources can be broadly defined
as compliance promotion. In general, this consists of State and
local agencies (along with EPA Regional Offices) implementing a
campaign to ensure that small sources and the general public
are aware of the program and understand the VOC air quality
requirements.
The rationale for developing a compliance promotion campaign
is based on the assumption that many small sources are not aware
that their VOC emissions are regulated, but they would comply if
notified of the VOC air quality requirements. Under this assump-
tion, a large emission reduction can result from implementing

-------
—4—
a low cost campaign to increase awareness of small sources of
VOC regulations. Also, as information is gathered on the com-
pliance status of small sources, this assumption can be evaluated
for its effectiveness and appropriate adjustments can be made to
the campaign.
The exact nature of the compliance promotion campaign will
depend on the methods of information dissemination that exist
in the small VOC source category being addressed. However, a
compliance promotion campaign should perform three functions:
O Identify small VOC sources — make a record of the
company name, the address of the facility, and the
type and production process.
o Notify small VOC sources — inform sources of air
quality requirements including needed control equip-
ment or process change.
O Inform the general public through a community—wide
communication strategy on the health effects of ozone,
the relative contribution of small source categories to
the problem, and the agency’s program for minimizing the
public health effects of VOC emissions from both large
and small emitters. In addition, upfront publicity on
the need for compliance will reduce the opportunities for
small sources to allege inequities in enforcement.
If it is appropriate, supplemental information should be
provided to small sources such as the steps they have to take
to come into compliance, or the community benefits gained by
their compliance.
In regard to information dissemination to sources, small VOC
source categories are of two general types. First, there are
those source categories which have trade associations, industry
publications such as newsletters, or periodic meetings that
provide an existing formal communication link. Working with a
trade association or similar communication link will greatly
facilitate the identification and notification of small VOC
sources. Second, there are those source categories that have no
formal communication link within their industr ’. Sources in
these categories will require individual notification (such as
letters or telephone calls) by the air pollution control agency,
peer pressure, or an environmentally aware public to promote a
willingness by the source to understand and comply with their
air pollution control obligations.

-------
—5—
As mentioned earlier, Appendix A contains background
information on six small VOC source categories that are major
contributors of emissions. Five out of the six categories have
trade associations which should be contacted and made a part of
any compliance promotion campaign.
The solvent metal cleaning (degreasing) source category
does not have a central trade association. In this case,
the air quality control agency will have to use the Chamber
of Commerce, yellow pages, or market publications to identify
and locate these small VOC sources. Notifying these sources
of their VOC emission requirements can be done by letters,
pamphlets, phone calls or by whatever means is practical.
Specific examples of compliance promotion approaches,
sample brochures and other nontraditional inducements concerning
small VOC source compliance will be sent out as supplementary
guidance. In addition, personal interactions with industry
representatives have yielded valuable insight, this will be
incorporated in the supplementary guidance as well.
2. Selected Inspection Program
The second component of the small source strategy is a
selected inspection program that will provide State and local
agencies and EPA with compliance information, and will establish
a minimum enforcement presence. Programmatic resource limitations
will not allow inspections of all small VOC sources even over
a long period of time (five years is considered a long period
of time). Instead, a compliance data base can be developed by
inspecting a relatively low number of small sources from selected
small VOC source categories.
By using statistical sampling, reliable estimates of the
compliance rates of small VOC sources for targeted source
categories can be made. The air pollution control agency
will need to conduct compliance monitoring inspections on a
randomly—selected number of small VOC sources. For the purposes
of this strategy, a relatively low number of inspections is
required to adequately estimate the compliance rate of all the
small VOC sources in a category. rising sound statistical
procedures, the minimum number of randomly selected inspections
required for each targeted VOC source category is twenty seven .
Appendix B provides details as to how the number 27” was
derived as well as providing a table of other values for
selected confidence levels if an agency elects to do more than
the minimally acceptable number of inspections. In addition,
Appendix B references several other statistics sources that
provide further information on the techniques used.

-------
— 6—
To make the estimate of the compliance rates as reasonably
accurate as possible, the inspection must be at least a Level
Two (a minimally—acceptable inspection as defined in the Inspection
Frequency Guidance). The compliance data collected from the
selected inspections will be the basis for the determination
of categorical compliance rates, for periodic evaluations, and
for appropriate adjustments to the strategy.
A fundamental assumption of the strategy is the existence
of significant noncompliance of VOC regulations by small sources.
One of the objectives of the strategy, however, is to evaluate
the accuracy of this assumption. For the purposes of this
strategy, a seventy percent or less estimated compliance rate
for a small VOC source category is considered a significant
compliance problem. Source compliance as always in the Air
program is determined by the worst case emission point at a
facility.
Conducting selected inspections (as randomly as possible)
of small sources in at least one VOC source category will
provide an adequate estimate of the compliance rate for all
of the small sources in that category. If the inspections
show the compliance rate to be higher than seventy percent,
shifting resources toward other VOC categories should be
considered. However, if the compliance estimate is less than
seventy percent, additional resources should be directed at
that category, if possible.
A seventy percent compliance rate is a rule—of—thumb
to provide some bench mark for this effort. Most likely,
there will be circumstances where focusing solely on source
categories with lower compliance rates will conflict with
focusing on source categories that may actually have higher
emission reduction potential, but also have higher overall
compliance rates. We would expect a reasonable interpretation
to be made in terms of committing additional resources rather
than blindly following compliance rates alone.
Besides providing a basis for making adjustments to the
strategy, data from the selected inspections can be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the small source compliance
strategy, and in particular, the compliance promotion efforts.
One indicator that the small VOC source strategy is effective
will be increasing compliance over time by small sources.
Higher compliance rates reported by follow—up inspections may
indicate that the nontraditional approaches are working.

-------
—7—
3. Enforcement Follow—up
The third component of the strategy is to bring small VOC
violators back into compliance. Bringing enforcement actions
against small sources may become a sensitive issue, but
enforcement is necessary to maintain the credibility of the
Agency’s ozone initiative.
The compliance and enforcement efforts in implementing
the asbestos demolition and renovation NESHAP program is an
example of a successful program addressing generally small
companies. One important element of the asbestos enforcement
program is media exposure given to issuing enforcement actions
to violators. Because media exposure increases enforcement
presence and credibility, it should also be an element in the
small VOC source compliance strategy. Media exposure of
resultant enforcement actions will reemphasize the need for
compliance both to the source as well as the general public.
Another useful tool is an administrative fines program.
Such a program can serve to deter sources from committing
violations as well as encouraging violators to regain com-
pliance. rmportant advantages of such a program are speed,
flexibility, and certainty. Flexibility to set penalties
appropriate to the nature of the violation is the key feature
in an effective administrative fines program. Certain States
do not have an administrative fines program and should be
encouraged to develop one in light of the above listed advant-
ages of such a program. States may otherwise be reluctant to
expend resources on resolving violations by small sources if
the only mechanism for accomplishing such a resolution is a
judicial civil action. A report on the “Initial Design
Considerations for a Model State and Local Administrative
Fines Program” is available from EPA under publication number
EPA—340/1—83— 0 18a.
EPA is able under Section 120 of the Clean Air Act to
assess penalties administratively against sources solely to
recoup the economic benefit gained by the source due to its
noncompliance. However, the Section 120 administrative penalty
program is not an appropriate enforcement method, in most
cases, to address violations of small VOC sources because of
its limited applicability.

-------
—8—
Irnplementat ion
By September, 1987, Regional Offices working with their
States must provide the Stationary Source Compliance Division
with the names of the nonattainment areas and the associated
VOC source categories where compliance promotion campaigns
and selected inspections will be conducted. In FY 1988, most
air pollution control agencies will begin implementing this
strategy.
To support ixrplementat’Ion of the small VOC source compliance
strategy, EPA has specifically earmarked Section 105 grant
funds in FY 1988. In addition, the Agency will evaluate the
implementation of this strategy through the NAAS and the
Regional review programs in FY 1989.
At a minimum, EPA expects implementation of compliance
promotion campaigns and selected VOC inspections conducted
for the 16 areas listed in Appendix C . However, small VOC
source compliance activities should not be limited to just
these areas. Regional Offices and air pollution control
agencies, using emission inventories and other information,
should identify and address all ‘ozone nonattainment areas
with potential small VOC source problems.
It is important to note that EPA’s inspection frequency
guidance provides air pollution control agencies with the
opportunity to develop an alternative inspection plan in lieu
of biennial inspections of Class A2 SIP sources. The alterna-
tive inspection plan has two conditions: the total inspection
plan must be based on the same resource expenditures as would
be required to inspect all Class A2 SIP sources on a biennial
basis, and all Class A2 SIP sources must be inspected at
least once every five years. This approach will allow agencies
to redirect inspection resources to small VOC sources.
During FY 1988, information from all small VOC sources
that had a compliance inspection conducted as a result of
this strategy must be entered into the Compliance Data System
(CDS). This information will form the data base to improve
our targeting of small VOC source compliance efforts in FY
1989. The information expected to be entered into CDS includes
source location Information, air program, class, SIC code,
inspection dates, any enforcement actions that resulted, and

-------
—9—
compliance status. In lieu of entering the specified data in
CDS, air pollution control agencies can send a copy of the
small VOC source inspection reports conducted pursuant to
this strategy to the appropriate EPA Regional Offices. With
such information, e iill be able to evaluate the strategy’s
effectiveness in FY 1989.
Finally, violations by small VOC Sources detected as a
result of the selected inspections program must be resolved
within 120 days. This timeframe should be adequate for resolving
most small VOC source violations. These violations should be
addressed administratively or informally to the extent possible.
An example of how this strategy can be applied is in
Appendix D.

-------
ppendix A
S(XJPCE CATEX)ORY P )FILE
S0LVE} T METAL CLEAN I 3
Source Solvent metal cleaning (degreasing) involves using organic solvents
Description to r ve oils, greases, and other soils fran rtetal surfaces.
Three types of solvent degreasers are affected:
a. Cold cleaner: batch loaded, nonboiling solvent degreasers.
Facility b. C en tcp vapor degreaser: batch load, boiling solvent
Description degreaser.
c. Conveyorized degreaser: Continuously loaded, conveyorized
solvent degreaser, either boiling or nonboiling.
en top vapor degreasers naller than 1 m of open area
are exempt fran the application of refrigerated chillers
or carbon adsorbers. Conveyor ized degreasers aller than
2.0 m 2 of air vapor interface are exempt fran a requirement
for a major control device.
Nunter of
Facilities
Estimates of the number of solvent degreasers nationwide for the
year 1974 are:
a. Cold cleaners (CC) — 1,220,000.
b. cpen top vapor degreasers (01’) — 21,000.
c. Conveyorized degreasers (CD) — 3,700.
issions

1
Estimates of annual nationwide emissions are:
a. CC — 380,000 /yr (410,000 ton/yr)
b. Or — 200,000 t’ç/yr (221,000 ton/yr)
c. CD — 100,000 fk /yr (110,000 ton/yr)
which represent about 2.5 percent of estimates VOC emissions
nationwide.
Average emission rates per degreaser:
a • CC — 0,3 /yr (0.3 ton/yr) ,
b. or — 10 ‘t /yr (11 ton/yr.)
c. CD — 27 l /yr (30 ton/yr).

-------
SOUR CATEXX)RY PROFILE
SOLVE METAL CLEANING (Cont.)
Control
,tions
A1i cst all CC can achieve RACT by use of pr er1y design €
and ci ’erator training. OT and CD usual]y require car n
Annualized Average Costs
and
CC — Hiqh Volatility $1
Costs
CC — Lc Volatility $26
OT $360
CD ($1,100)
C 1PLIA CE S RATB Y IMFORMATICt4
Hiahly diversified process used in large nuit ber of 1 anufactL
Organizations
industries — no central trade association or other orcanizat
knc, .tm other than the ASTh subca nittee on degreasers.
Manufacturers
Safety—Xleen, Barron—l3lakslee, Inc., Delta Industries,
Grayi ills Corn., Detrex Corp., Kleer—Flo Ccrpany.
Cross Media
RCRA, Local Fire Marshal, OSHA.
Other
Mailing lists, pa up]ets, se ninars, erator certificates, tel€
93otline”, administrative fines, statistical taraeting.

-------
SOURCE CATEX3ORY P )FtL
SOLINE SERVICE STATIONS - STAGE I
Sc*irce
scription
A gasoline service station Is a retail cutlet that dist,enses,
for profit, gasoline, oil and maintenance services to the
oeneral p.iblic.
Facility
1 scr Ipt ion
Transfer of gasoline fr deliuery tricks to service station
storage tanks.
.fl *)er of
Facilities
Estimated to be 180,000 retail gasoline service stations nation—
wide. There are 240,00P other gasoline dispensing outlets.
E lssions
For transfer of gasoline to service storage tanks, VOC nissions
estimated to be 400,000 Mgf r (440,000 ton/yr) which represents
about 1.5 percent of estimated ‘RX enissions nationwide.
Without vapor controls, Individual facility VOC eynissions are
estth ated to be 1.4 kg/l,000 liters (11.5 lb/1,000 gal) of
throughout. For a typical facility having a throughout of
151,000 l1ter, iio (40,000 galJWo) VOC nissions would be 2.5
4gfyr (2.8 ton/yr) for Stage I.
RACE
Reductions
St e I control can reduce transfer losses by 95+ percent and
total facility losses by 50 percent.

-------
SOURCE C TEX QRy P1 )FILE
SOLINE SERVICE STATICt.JS - STPGE I (Cont.)
E nission limits in tern of equi nent specifications. Reccr,nended
controls are suh ierged fill of storage tanks, vapor balance between
Control
truck and tank, and a leak free truck and vapor transfer
Options
,
and Costs
Annualized Average Costs
Service station, tank truck and tenninal (S200) per service station
LIANCE STRATEXY INFORMATICN
M erican Petroleum Institute, Fire Marshall Association, National
Organizations
Fire Protection Association, Major Oil Refineries, local service
station dealers association.
Manufacturers
Fire Marshals (National and local), RCRA
Cross Media
1•
I
Mailing lists, panphlets, tank truck operator training,
Other
a ninistrative fines, statistical targeting. Note: stations
usually have cold cleaners (degreasers).

-------
S J E CAT ORY P FILE
JRFACE TING OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARIS AND P )D(JC’rS
This category is ccrprised of job shop and original equincnent
Source manufacturing industries which apply coatinos on metal substrates,
Description except those Industries which were covered by other C’rG docurents.
Coatlixi application area, fiashoff areas, dryers, and ovens for
marufacturers of:
a. Larcie farm machinery
Facility b . Small fanii machinery
Description c. all appliances
d. CaTercial machinery
e. Industrial machinery
f. Any other industrial category, which coats netals, under
SIC malor groups 33—39, inclusive.
Excent those facilities which are covered by other C1ts.
Nt tt,er of
Facilities
96,000
Dnissions
9.0 x i0 M /vr (1 x 1O tons,’ ’r) estimated for l 77, which repre-
sents abcxzt 5.0 percent of stationary source estimated emissions.
a. An emission factor of 0.66 kg ‘ . )C/l coating less water
(3.5 lb X/cal coating less water) can be expected fra ’
a facility utilizing a coating ccrposed of 75 percent
organic soLvent, 25 percent solids by vol e.
b. For facilities utilizing an electrodeposition process the
C einission factor Is 0.36 kg VDC/l coating less water (3.0
lb/gal).
RACE
Reductions
I_______
Percent reduction in \ C emissions
Process ncdificatlon (coating/equi nent change) 50—98
Exhaust gas treatmant 90+
I

-------
JRCE C XEXORy P FILE
JRFACE C TING OF MISCELL N (JS M AL PAI IS AND wcrs (Cont.)
Control C tions
and Costs
The majority of sources can switch to LST at little or no
additional expense. If exhaust gas treatment is required,
the annualized cost could exceed $30,000 per coating line.
(X 4PLIANCE STRATEX3Y tNFOI lATICt4
Association of Finishing Processes of SME.
Organizations
Dipont, PPG Industries and other major coating suppliers,
Manufacturers
General t’btors Corp., and other auto parts
acrers,
%t hirpool Corp. and other major appliance manufacturers.
Cross—Media
Other
Ni.miberous Publications — ‘High Solids Coating”, ‘ Products
Finishing’, ‘P der Finishing trld ’, etc.

-------
3DURCE CATEGORY P FILE
P O .O1 E’rHyIENE DRY CANIN( SYSTEIIS
Source
Description
The dry clean irv industry is segrecated into three cateqories:
(1) coIn-operated, (2) cci ercia1, and (3) industrial. The principal
steps in the dry cleaning process are identical to those of ordinary
laundering in water: (1) one or ncre washes (baths) in solvent; (2)
extraction of excess solvent by spinning; aM (3) drying by tumbling
in an air stream.
Facilities
Description
Affected facilities ar coin-operated, ccr rcla], and industrial
dry cleaning syst which utilize perchioroethylene as solvent. I
Coin—op 14,900 I
Cci nercial 44,600
Industrial 230
Coin—op 21,400 Mq/yr (23,500 tons/yr)
CcITr rcial 123,000 Mg/yr (135,000 tons/yr)
Industrial 13,600 /yr ( 15,000 tons/yr) I
The estjmatec’ 158,000 Mg C/yr is 0.9 percent of total stationar -,
source estimated emissions.
Uncontrolled C nissions
Type of plant kg/yr (lb/yr)
Coin—op 1,460 (3,200)
Ccrr rcia1 3,240 (7,200)
industrial 32,400 (72,000)
Nw’ter of
Facilities
iss ions
RACE
Reductions
Carbon adsorption applied to caituercial and industrial plants will
reduce overall \ DC nissions by 40—75 percent.

-------
S JRCE CA T ORY P FILE
P C CThYLD E DPY CLEANING SYSTE ’1S (Cont.)
Control
Options arx
Costs
Carbon adsor r, waste hand] lnq and leak stcçpage.
Mnuallzed Average Costs
Mad1tm Size Plant $300
C (PLIANCE SrRATEX3Y INFOJ 4ATI
National Inst1tut of Dry Cleanlr , International Fabricare
Oraanizations
Institute, National Fire Protection Association, Institute of
Industrial Launderers.
i
Hoyt ManuFacturing, Inc., PR. Street and Ccrpany, Marvel Manufact—
urir Co., Washex Machinery, Inc., American Laundry Machinery,
Manufacturers
W.M. Cissel Manufacturing, Co., VIC Martufacturina Co, Challenge —
Cock Brothers, Inc.
Osha, Fire Marshal
Cross Media
Publications — IFI Special Reporter, newsletters, irailina lists,
Other
palTphlets , ac ninistrative fines, statistical targeting.

-------
SOURCE C T ORY P )FILE
BUll C 1 SOLINE PLWrS
A “bulk plant” is riefined as a oasoline distrihutiori facility
S irce a daily gasoline throughout of 76,000 liter (20,000 qal) or less
Description per day. The daily gasoline throuqhput at a typical size bilk
plant is 14,000 to 17,000 lIter/day (4,000 to 5,000 gal/day).
Facility
Description
Gasoline storage tanks, knockout tank and loading racks.
Facilities which deliver over 20,000 gal/day are covered under
the CEG for terminals.
Ntnnber of
Facilities
There were 23,367 bilk pJants in 1972 accordinq to the Bureau of
Census. Current estimates are at it 18,000 bulk gasoline plants
nationwide.
issions
Estimated annual eiUssions are 150,000 !“c/yr (168,000 ton/yr)
which renresent ahciut 0.6 percent of estimated W’C emissions
nationwide.
A facility with three storage tanks would have WIC emissions
approximatirta 4.4 kg/day (120 lb/day) plus a range of 0.2 to 3.0
1,000 liters throughput (2.0 to 250 ib/l,000 gal). For a typica1
size facility havina a thoughnut of 18,9O ) liter/day (5,000 gal
day) average VIX emissions are estimated to be 15 Mg/yr (17 ton/yr).
pACr
eductions
ission limits reccrmend in ter’i of equiçü nt specification
alternatives:
1. Su1 nerqed fill of outaoing tank trucks.
2. Alternative 1 + vapor balance for In nina transfer.
3. Alternative 2 4 vapor balance for outgoir transfer.
Eknission ductions Total Plant All Transfers
Alternative 1
AlternatIve 2
Alternative 3
22 percent
54 percent
77 percent
27 percent
64 percent
92 percent

-------
SOURCE CAT FX’ ORY PlOP ILE
BULK GASOLINE PLAflTS (Cont.)
(X PL1ANCE STRATEGY INFO 1ATI
Control Option
and Cost
In long term ozone probleri areas alternative 3 shc*ild he recuired
for all bulk qas plants.
Annualized Averaae Costs
4,000 gal Bulk Gas Plant $1,000
Organizations
American Petroleum Institute.
Maru facturers
Zinlc McGill, Rheem Surerior, Edwards Engineering, Sc ithwest, mc i.
I
Cross—Media
Fire Marshal
Other
Majljr lists, nha vlets, a& inistratjve fines, statistical
tarrleting, telephone TM Hotlines”.

-------
SC(JRCE CATEGORY PROFILE
OiATIM OF FABRIC AND VINYL
Source
Description
Fabric coating involves the application of decorative or protective
coatings to a textile substrate.
Facility
Description
Fabric and vinyl surface coating lines including the applicator
areas and the drying ovens. Fabric coating includes all types of
coatings applied to fabric. Vinyl coating refers to any printing
decorative, or protective toçroat applied over vinyl coated fabric
or vinyl sheets.
Number of
Facilities
No reliable estimates available at this time.
iissions
Estimated annual emission fran fabric coating operations are 100,000
Mg/yr (110,000 ton/yr). The vinyl segment of the fabric industry
emits about 36,000 Mg/yr (40,000 ton/yr). Fabric coating represents
about 0.4 percent of the estimated VOC emissions nationwide.
Average source annual VOC emissions are estimated to be 850 Mg (940
ton).
About one—half the coating facilities emit less than 100 ton/yr
of VOC.
RACE
Reduct ion
The actual percent reduction will vary depending on the solvent
content of the existing coatings and the control method selected.
Implementation of the recaniended control methods can reduce VOC
emissions by 8C to 100 percent.

-------
S TRCF CATEX ORY PROFILE
COATING OF FABRIC AND VINYL (Cont.)
1 I
PL LANCE STRAT Y INFORMATION
Control
Options
and Costs
Incineration or carhon adsorntion is the mst desireable control
q tion in a majority of applications.
I
Annualized Average Costs
Coatino Lines $70,000
Organ izat ions
Ch iical Fabrics and Furl Association.
Marn.ifacturers
Alden Rubber Co., Tciick Industries, Ford Motor C rany and othec
auto and furniture manufacturers, General Tire and Rubber, Co.,
nnison Manufacturing Co., Archor Continenta).
Cross Media
Other
Administrative fines, statistical sarrplinq, mailing lists, I
paz!phlets, individual source inspections.

-------
Appendix B
Statistical Procedures for Selected Inspection Program
By using statistical sampling, reliable estimates of the
compliance rates of small VOC sources for targeted source
categories can be made. The air pollution control agency
will need to conduct compliance monitoring inspections on a
randomly—selected number of small VOC sources. For the
purposes of this strategy, a relatively low number of inspections
is required to adequately estimate the compliance rate of all
small VOC sources in a category. A useful formula for
determining the appropriate sample size is the following:
t 2 PQ
N R 2 ; where
N is the number of selected inspections In the sample.
t is the t—statistic that sets the level of confidence
associated with the estimated compliance rate.
P is the initial estimate of the compliance rate.
0 is the initial estimate of the noncompliance rate.
P is the reliability or precision of the compliance rate
estimate.
To use this formula, it is necessary to make an initial
estimate of the small VOC source compliance rate for the
targeted category. In most cases, the air pollution control
agency will not have enough information to make an accurate
initial estimate. Therefore, a fifty percent compliance
rate should be used, thus erring on the side of conducting
more inspections. The t—statistic sets the level of confidence
of the compliance rate estimate. The appropriate level of
confidence will be a decision made by the Regional Office or
air pollution control agency, but the minimum level of
confidence is Seventy percent. A t—statistic equal to 1.04
sets the level of confidence at seventy percent. The precision
of the compliance rate estimate is determined by R. The
range of the estimate can be no greater than plus or minus
ten percent in absolute terms. An example sample estimate
using a 50 percent compliance rate plus or minus 10 percent
would mean you can say that you are 70% confident that the
true population compliance rate is between 40% and 60%.

-------
Plugging these numbers into the formula will yield the
minimum number of selected inspections required for each
targeted VOC source category.
P0 ( 1.04)2 (5) (.5 )
N = R 2 ( 0.l) = 27.04
Therefore, the minimum number of randomly selected inspections
required for each targeted VOC source category is twenty seven.
If the Regional Office or air pollution control agency
wants compliance rate estimates with higher levels of confidence
and greater precision, more inspections will be required.
For an example, an agency has targeted a VOC source category
that requires high compliance for the urban area to achieve
the ozone standard. Existing information indicates the
compliance rate of small VOC sources is approximately seventy
percent, but the agency wants to accurately confirm this
information. They decide to set the level of confidence at
ninety—five percent and the precision at plus or minus five
percent.
t 2 P0 ( 1.96)2 (.7) (.3 )
N = R 1 = (.05)Z = 322.69
To have this level of confidence and precision, the agency
will need to conduct 323 selected inspections.
The following table (Table A) shows the number of inspec-
tions required at different confidence levels assuming two
different compliance scenarios. It is provided as an aid
in determining the level of effort you may want to commit to
this program. However, the minimally acceptable level is 27
annual inspections per source category.
The Agency’s Statistical Policy Branch is available to
provide technical assistance to the Regional Offices on
random sampling techniques and on statistical estimation of
compliance rates. If you have any questions or concerns on
this statistical treatment or need assistance, please contact:
Mel Kollander
Statistical Policy Branch (PM—223)
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
US Environmental Protection Agency
(202) 382—2734
For further reference, see:
Cochran, William G., Sampling Techniques , 2nd Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966, page 75; or
Hansen, Morris H., Horwitz, William N., and Maclow,
William G., Sampling Survey Methods and Theory ,
John Wiley & Sons, 1953, page 128.

-------
Table A: Number of Inspections at Different Confidence
Levels.
Scenario 1: When P = 0.5, 0 = 0.5, and R = 0.1, the number
of inspections at a specified level of confidence
is as follows:
Level of Confidence t—statistic(t) Number of Inspections
70% 1.04 27
80% 1.28 41
90% 1.64 67
95% 1.96 96
99% 2.58 166
Scenario 2: When P = 0.7, 0 = 0.3, and R = 0.05, the number
of inspections at a specified level of confidence
is as follows:
Level of Confidence t—statistic(t) Number of Inspections
70% 1.04 91
80% 1.28 138
90% 1.64 226
95% 1.96 323
99% 2.58 559

-------
Appendix C
Areas with Ozone Design Values greater than or equal to
0.16 PPM and Populations greater than one million
Area Design Value Population
(in millions)
1. Los Angeles 0.36 10.6
2. Houston 0.25 2.6
3. Greater Connecticut 0.23 1.0
4. New York 0.22 16.3
5. San Diego 0.21 1.7
6. Chicago 0.20 6.8
7. Philadelphia 0.18 4.8
8. Baltimore 0.17 1.8
9. Milwaukee 0.17 1.4
10. San Francisco 0.17 4.6
11. Atlanta 0.16 1.6
12. Boston 0.16 3.2
13. Dallas—Ft. Worth 0.16 2.5
14. Phoenix 0.16 1.4
15. St. Louis 0.16 1.9
16. Washington, D.C. 0.16 2.8

-------
Appendix D
Hypothetjéal Examples
Small VOC Source Strategy for a Nonattairunent Area City
As previously discussed, attainment of the NAAQS for
ozone is virtually impossible in long term ozone problem
areas (LTOZPAs) unless small VOC sources are effectively
controlled. Since the character of the small source problem
varies significantly from LTOZPA to LTOZPA, each nonattajnment
area should develop its own plan to address the problem.
Relatively large reductions are projected in the SIPs
for service stations stage I and degreasers. However, there
is no way to verify, expect or even hope that these reductions
have occurred. These sources are not inspected, and general
ignorance by the owner/operator of their obligations seems to
exist.
A comprehensive methodical approach towards controlling
these sources is clearly a necessity and each source category
has unique problems requiring innovative solutions. Each
nonattainment area should develop customized approaches
tailored to meet the needs of each source category. As
examples of the application of general strategy principles to
individual categories, specific strategies for service stations
stage I and degreasing follow.
Strategy for Service Stations Stage I
Bac kg round
1) 420,000 gas stations nationwide.
2) Compliance measures center around tank trucks unloading
fuel into underground storage tanks.
3) Tank trucks and gas stations frequently owned by major
oil refineries. Independent gas stations may be
owned and operated by various business organizations
from one pump carryout storesN to large gas—and—goes”.
Strategy Assumptions
1) To set—up a full blown enforcement program would be too
costly and very inefficient. A streamlined approach is
essential.

-------
2) Major oil refineries and taxation authorities have reason
to provide assistance towards implementing the program
described below.
Propp ed Program
Compliance Promotion : The primary impediment is the enormous
number of sources. Since the major oil refineries own a
large percentage of the gas stations, cost efficient compliance
promotion is possible. Distributing pamphlets describing
regulatory obligations and solutions through a small number of
centralized points would be very resource efficient. Although
there is little reason for them to be highly cooperative, the
major oil refineries should be willing to distribute compliance
related information if it helps them to avoid noncompliance.
Teamster unions may also be interested in providing seminars
for their jobbers. If improper tank truck hook—ups are
causing unlawful emissions, then a certificate of training
may prove desirable.
The remaining independent gas station owners present a
special problem. Direct contact through some mechanism seems
inevitable. Since gas stations are retail businesses, a retail
sales tax authority would have a complete computerized mailing
list that could be used for pamphlet distribution. Very
small additional funds would be required to automate the
“mailouts”.
Selected Inspections : Inspecting all gas stations is not
practical. Fortunately, the control measures for gas stations
involve equipment specifications and gasoline transfer proce-
dures. Once the tank truck and underground tanks have a
matching coupling configuration, compliance is easy. In this
situation, regular reporting is completely unnecessary.
Hence, the only surveillance action recommended is a random
Level 2 inspection to check for proper equipment installation.
In high compliance areas, 24 manhours every sixty days may be
sufficient (inspect about 27 gas stations and/or tank truck
couplers). If widespread noncompliance is consistently noted,
proceed to the Enforcement component below. Widespread
noncompliance would be defined as a categorical noncompliance
rate estimated to be greater than 30 percent.
Enforcement : If widespread noncompliance exists, “high
vjsibilityH, aggressive enforcement may be very effective.
Pick at random some noricompliers from different areas of the
city and build a strong enforcement presence (e.g., do level

-------
3 inspections, provide evidence of the special efforts to
notify made by EPA, reiterate the contribution of gas stations
to the ozone problem, etc.). By word—of—mouth”, these
enforcement actions would soon be known to all gas station
owners. Since these are retail outlets, press releases to
local community newspapers may also prove effective. -
After each major enforcement initiative a return to the
normal surveillance activity for three months would allow
sufficient time for installation of the proper control equip-
ment. If widespread noncompliance is again noted, a repeat
of this enforcement initiative would be appropriate.
Strategy for Degreasers
Bac kg round
1) 1,300,000 degreasers nationwide. 1,220,000 of these
are cold cleaners.
2) Degreasers used in hundreds of different types of
industries to clean metal parts prior to coating,
assembling or repairing.
3) OSHA and RCRA have regulations in place.
4) Small number of manufacturers.
Strategy Assumptions
1) Far too many sources to implement a traditional com-
pliance program.
2) Coordinated cross—media inspection programs in the past
have proven difficult to design and implement.
3) No trade associations known.
Compliance Promotion : The compliance problems for degreasers
are similar to those for Service Station — Stage I. Approxi-
mately 1,300,000 degreasers operate in roughly 500,000 estab-
lishments. Knowledge of air pollution requirements may be
nonexistent.
A two stage approach to inform users of their responsibili-
ties is suggested. First, there exists a relatively small
number of manufacturers who have been responsive to RCRA
requirements. The manufacturers of cold cleaners, commonly

-------
used in gas stations, either sell, service or lease ready—to—use
units. Convenient, cost—efficient distribution of pamphlets
through these manufacturers is highly reconunended. In addition,
all units produced should have affixed to them clear instructions
for proper use and a summary of penalties for misuse.
Secondly, a majority of the cold cleaners can be found in
gas stations. The paniphlet for service stations stage I should
include a section addressing degreasing.
The EPA should develop the pamphlet and initiate
contact with the six manufacturers listed in the source
category profile.
Selected Inspections and Enforcement : The suggested surveillance
and enforcement program is conceptually identical to that
proposed for service stations — stage I. Surveillance consists
of a periodic inspection of randomly selected sources using
Level 2 techniques. This should be coordinated with your gas
station inspection program, but not limited to gas stations.
Enforcement should be highly publicized. For details on this
approach, please see strategy for service stations — stage I.

-------
PN 113-87-06-25-037
D s7 4
___ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
S

JUN 2 5 9$7
P€ MORANDUM
SUBJECT: Proper and Timely Review of State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Revisions
FROM: Gerald A. Emison,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, X
We need your assistance to speed up reviewing and processing of SIP
revisions that are associated with an enforcement action. This aspect Is
important in light of the recent iierican Cyanamid court decision 1 which
held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may not assess
penalties under section 120 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) where the source
is in compliance with a proposed SIP revision that has been awaiting
action by EPA for longer than 4 months. We are concerned that the same
results could be achieved by a source in a similar situation when
confronted with a civil penalty In the application of section 113 of the
CAA. Therefore, it is necessary for SIP reviewers to process these
actions quickly. Several Federal Register notices are in Headquarters or
in the Regions which have technical and policy problems that must be
corrected before publication. We ask that you make a special effort to
ensure that SIP packages which you forward for processing are complete
before leaving your office. They will be accorded a similar priority in
Headquarters.
Several States have expressed concern over EPA’s apparent lack of
timeliness in processing SIP revisions. Unfortunately, some State—submitted
packages are incomplete or inaccurate. In these cases if the State does
not provide the correct information promptly, the Federal Register notice
should propose disapproval, citing the lack of supporting material as one
reason for disapproval. As you process SIP actions, it is important
that EPA policy be correctly stated in all notices and that the review be
complete, accurate, and correct. Any deviations or unusual circtnnstances
1 Decision of the Fifth Circuit in American Cyanamid Co. v. EPA , Plo. 85—4899
(5th Cir. Feb. 20, 1987)

-------
—2—
should be explained and justified in the Federal Register notice. For
example, the baselinefor the SIP revisions should be explained and
calculated correctly. Apparent Inconsistencies and errors should be
expeditiously checked with the State and either corrected or identified
as a basis for disapproval. Where the facts or policies may be
misunderstood, they should be explained. Many times the State has
submitted insufficient information, docunentation, or justification
for an action. The EPA cannot give the appearance of delay while attempting
to negotiate corrections with the State.
The following are some of the problems that I would like for you to
pay particular attention to as you process SIP revisions. First, the
revisions must include emission limits which are legally enforceable.
Second, many orders or permits at EPA are missing proper emission limits,
production limits, test methods, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
Finally, many actions are not clearly explained and the technical
calculations (for baselines and/or modeling) do not support the SIP
revision. If SIP revisions do not meet the basic requirements, then they
should be expeditiously processed for disapproval. We cannot afford to
delay our rulemaking actions by waiting for the State to correct the
problems, but must expeditiously process whatever we have.
My staff will continue to work with you to resolve these problems.
We appreciate your support and assistance in this matter.
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I—X
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Chief, Air Compliance Branch, Regions I—X
C. Potter
M. Alushin
R. Biondi
R. Brenner
R. Campbell
D. Clay
A. Eckert
S. Farrell
B. Gilbert
T. Helms
H. Hoffman
J. Lees
B. Nicholson
R. Ossias
3. Rasnic
J. Seitz
P. Stolpman
B. Steigerwald
D. Tyler
P. Wyckoff

-------
PN 113-87-05-27-036
itO Sr 4 ,
; J f
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
p t
OFFICE OF
MAY 2 7 1987 AJ&
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reactivation of Noranda Lakeshore Mthes’ RLA
Plant and PSD Review
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compi nce Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
Pursuant to your recent request, this memorandum addresses
the status of Noranda Lakeshore Mines’ roaster leach acid (RLA)
plant in Arizona. Noranda is contemplating startup of the RLA
plant which has been shut down since 1977. The company contends
that the shutdown was not intended to be permanent, and there-
fore believes that the plant should not be subject to PSD review.
Whether or not a source which has been shut down is subject
to PSD review upon reactivation depends on whether the shutdown
is considered permanent. EPA evaluates permanence of shutdowns
based on the intent of the owner or operator. The facts and
circumstances of the particular case, including the duration of
the shutdown and the handling of the shutdown by the State, are
considered as evidence of the owner or operator’s intent. This
decisionmaking framework follows the policy on plant reactivation
which EPA set forth in 1978. The September 6, 1978 memorandum
which initiated this policy states: “A shutdown lasting for two
years or more, or resulting in removal of the source from the
emissions inventory of the State, should be presumed permanent.
The owner or operator proposing to reopen the source would have

-------
2
the burden of showing that the shutdown was not permanent, and of
overcoming any presumption that it was.” Several memoranda later
issued by SSCD (August 8, 1980; October 3, 1980; July 9, 1982)
applied this shutdown/reactivation policy.
In the case of Noranda’s RLA plant, your staff has provided
the following information. The RLA plant, previously owned by
Hecla. Mining Company, was shut down by Hecla in 1977 due to
market conditions. Reports issued by Hecla at the end of 1977
stated that the RL facility could be operational within one
week. However, due to poor economic conditions Hecla decided to
terminate their lease for the RLA plant. In 1979 Noranda
purciiased the facility, but never operated the RLA plant due to
similar economic problems; the RL plant itself has not operated
since 1977. The RLA plant was deleted from Noranda’s operating
permits in 1980, and Noranda’s remaining operating permits were
surrendered in 1984. In 1986, the RLA plant was removed from the
State’s emission inventory. Your staff has also indicated that
the roaster may need at least several hundred thousand dollars
worth of work before being operable, and could not come on line
for approximately four months.
Since the RLA plant has been shut down for well over 2 years
and has been removed from the State’s emission inventory, EPA
presumes that the shutdown was permanent. However, Noranda has
submitted documentation to Region 9 seeking to demonstrate that
the shutdown was not intended to be permanent. Included is
a 1980 statement of intent for long term operation of the
facility, evidence of some search for toll concentrates of
sufficient quality to allow operation, and evidence of some level
of custodial maintenance. The question which now arises is
whether the information submitted is sufficient to rebut the
presumption of a permanent shutdown.
EPA evaluates the permanence of the shutdown based on
the demonstrated intent of the owner or operator to reopen the
source. Facts and circumstances surrounding the shutdown,
including duration of the shutdown and the handling of the
shutdown b the source and State, are evidence of the owner’s
intent. In Noranda’s case, the significant amount of time that
has elapsed, as well as Noranda’s failure to maintain the
operating permit, removal of the RL . I plant from the emissions
inventory, and the time and capital that must be invested in
the rehabilitation of the plant in order to make it operable,
are evidence that the shutdown was intended to be permanent.

-------
3
There is not sufficient evidence of intent to reopen the source
to regard this as a temporary shutdown. Therefore, SSCD concurs
with Region 9’s determination that the source, for PSD purposes,
is permanently shut down, and must meet Federal PSD requirements
for construction and operation.
If you have any questions, please contact Sally M. Farrell
at FTS 382—2875.
cc: Wayne Blackard, Region IX
Nancy Harney, Region IX
Bruce Armstrong, OPAB
NSR Contacts

-------
PN 113-87—03-25-035
l4)
• q o’
MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
25
SUBJECT:
FRO ’i:
TO:
Revised Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty
Policy
Thorn as L. Ad an s, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
Addressees
Attached is a copy of the revised Clean Air Act Stationary
Source Civil Penalty Policy. Thank you for the comments submitted
on the draft. The offices which submitted comments will receive
a separate memo detailing the disposition of individual suggestions.
The policy is effective immediately for all cases which have been
filed or referred to the Department of Justice in which the TJ.S.
has not yet co’imunicated a settlement penalty amount to the
source ovlner or operator.
At tachinent
Addressees.
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions l-
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Manage’nent Division Directors
Regions 1., [ 11, V, and I X
Air, Pestici ,lec, nd Toxics ?lanagenent DLvision Dir- CtLrs
Regions L V and ‘/1
Air and To ics Division Dir cCors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
7/

-------
-2-
Richard 1ays
3enior Enforcenent Counsel
Thomas Gall.agher, Director
NEIC
Gerald Elnison, OAQPS
Rich Robinson, LEPB
Bruce Rothrock, OCAPO
David Buente, DOJ
Bill Becker, STAPPA-ALAPCO

-------
CLEAN AIR ACT
STATIONARY SOURCE
CIVIL PENALTY POLICy
March 25, 1987

-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .. ........... •.... ........ ............ 1
II. ?reliminaryDeterrenceAmount.....................3
A. Benefit Component .............................. 3
1. Benefitfroindelayedcosts
2.Benefitfromavoidedcosta..................4
3. Settling cases for an ount less than the
economic benefit ...........e.l......e...... . 5
a. Benefit component involves insignificant
amoUnt ... ....... . ... .... .. •••e....... ... . 5
b. Compelling public concerns ...............6
c. Litigation practicalities ................ 7
d.ConcurrencS l20action..................7
e. Offset for penalties paid to state or local
agencies ..................................8
B. Gravity Component . .. .... •...... .. .. .. ....... 8
1. Actual or possible harm .... .. ....... .. .. .... 10
a. Level of violation
b. Toxicity of the pollutant
c. Sensitivity of environment
d. Length of time of violation
2. Importance to regulatory scheme ............. 11
3. Size of violator .......................,•• . 11
III. AdjustingtheGravityCoraponer*t................... 1 2
A. Degree of willfulness or negligence ............ 13
B. Degreeof cooperation ....
I.. Prompt reporting of noncompliance
2. Prompt correction of environmental problems
C. History of noncompliance ... ......... .. . . . ...... 15
D. Abi].ity to pay .....................—....••••••• 17
E. Other unique factors ... . ..... . ...... ... ..... . .. 18
IV. Calculating a Penalty in Cases ciith More than one
Violation .............................•••••••••• 19

-------
-2-
V. Mitigation Projects . . •.. •1I • • • • • • • . . . • • • . • • • . .1 •I 20
VI. Ex ples •••e•osss•••... . ..................... 22
VII. Conclusion 30
VIII. Appendices
I. Permit Penalty Policy
II. Vinyl Chloride Penalty Policy
I I I. Asbestos Penalty Policy
IV. VOC Penalty Policy
V. Air Civil Penalty Worksheet

-------
Clean Air Act Stationary Source Penalty Policy
I. INTRODUCTION
Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §74 13(b),
provides the Administrator of EPA with the authority to
commence a civil action against certain violators to recover
a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day. Since July 8,
1980, EPA has been assessing civil penalties for Clean Air
Act violations under Section 113(b) based on the considerations
listed in the statute and the guidance provided in the Civil
Penalty Policy issued on that date.
On February 16, 1984, EPA issued a new Policy on Civil
Penalties and a Framework for Statute-Specific Approaches €o
Penalty Assessments. The Policy focuses on the general
philosophy behind the penalty program. The Framework provides
guidance to each program on how to develop medi xn-specifjc
penalty policies. The Air Enforcement program followed the
Policy and the Framework in drafting the Clean Air Act
Stationary Source Penalty Policy, which was issued on
September 12, 1984. This policy amends the September 12,
1984 policy, incorporating EPA’sexperience in calculating
arid. negotiating penalties during the past .two years.
This document provides guidance to be used in calculating
the civil penalty EPA will require in settlement of enforce-
ment actions taken pursuant to Title I of the Clean Air Act.
It reflects the considerations enumerated in §113(b) of the
Clean Air Act. It applies only to initial enforcement actions
in district court and is not meant to control the penalty
amount requested in actions to enforce existing consent
decrees)! The required use of this guidance is also limited to
-pre-trial settlement of enforcement actions. Once a case
proceeds to trial, EPA attorneys are not bound by this docu-
ment, except the policy on mitigation projects in Section IV.
In a trial, government attorneys may find it relevant and
helpful to introduce a penalty calculation under this policy,
as a point of reference in a demand for appropriate penalties.
However, once a case goes to trial, they should ask for a
larger penalty than the mthumuro settlement figure as calculated
under the policy.
11 1n these actions, EPA will normally seek the penalty
a ount dictated by the stipulated penalty provisions of the
consent decree, If a consent decree contains no stipulated
penalty provisions, the case development team should propose
penalties suitable to vindicate th authority of the court.

-------
—2—
The general policy applies to most Clean Air Act
violations. There are some kinds of violations, however,
that have characteristics which make the use of the general
policy inappropriate. These are treated in separate guidance,
included as appendices. Appendix I covers violations of
permit requirements. Appendix II deals with the gravity
component for vinyl chloride violations. Appendix iii Covers
the benefit and gravity components for asbestos demolition
and renovation violations, (The general policy applies to
other NESHAps violations.) The general policy applies to
violations of volatile organic compoux d regulations where the
compliance plan involves installation of control equipment.
Separate guidance is provided for VOC violators which comply
through reformulation (Appendix IV).
This penalty policy contains two sections. The first
section describes how to achieve the goal of deterrence
through penalty components that 1) remove the economic benefit
of noncompliance and 2) reflect the gravity of the violation.
The second section provides adjustment factors so that both
a fair and equitable penalty will result and there will be a
swift resolution to the environmental problem. Adjustment
factors apply only to the gt avity. component. Except in
extraordin, ary circumstances, as described below, the rowest
possible settlement penalty will be the calculated economic
benefit of noncompliance.
This guidance tells how to calcul•ate minim uu settlement
figures for the internal use of Agency negotiators. Conse-
quently, the penalty figures in negotiations should not neces-
sarily be as low as the minim figure. The final settlement
amount should go no lower than the calculated minimum unless
the reasons for the deviation are proper and doct.unented.
All penalties paid pursuant to this penalty policy are
not deductible for federal tax purposes, and should be speci-
fically delineated as such.
The procedures set out in this document are intended
solely for the guidance of government personnel. They are
not intended and cannot be relied upon to create rights,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. The Agency reserves the
right to act at variance with this policy and to change it at
any time without public notice.
This penalty policy is effective immediately with respect
to all cases which have been filed in court or referred to
the Department of Justice in which a penalty offer has not
been transmitted to the opposthg party.

-------
-3-
II. THE PRELIMINARy DETERRENCE AMOUNT
The February 16, 1984 Policy on Civil Penalties
establishes deterrence as an important goal of penalty assess-
nent. More specifically, it says that rnany penalty should, at
a minimum , remove any significant benefits resulting from
noncompliance. In addition, it should include an amount
beyond removal of economic benefit to reflect the seriousness
of the violation. That portion of the penalty which removes
the economic benefit of noncompliance is referred to as the
“benefit component;” that part of the penalty which reflects
the seriousness of the violation is referred to as the “gravity
component.” When combined, these two components yield the
“preliminary deterrence amount.”
This section of the doc .unent provides guidelines for
calculating the benefit component and the gravity component.
It will also discuss the limited circwnstanceg which justify
settling for less than the benefit component. The uses of
the preliminary deterrence amount will be’ explained in subse-
quent portions of this docunent.
A. THE BENEFIT COMPONENT
In order to ensure that penalties remove any significant
economic benefit of noncompliance, it is necessary to have
reliable methods to calculate that benefit. The existence of
reliable methods also strengthens the Agency’s position in
both litigation and negotiation. This section sets out
guidelines for computing the benefit component. It first
addresses costs which are delayed by noncompliance. Then it
addresses costs which are avoided completely by noncompliance.
It also identifies issues to be considered when computing the
benefit component for those violations where the benefit of
noncompliance results from factors other than cost savings.
This section concludes with a discussion of the proper use of
the benefit component in developing penalty figures and in
settlement negotiations.
In enforcement actions against nonprofit public entities
such as municipalities or publicly-owned utilities, the
economic benefit should be calculated. The full economic
benefit component need not be automatically used in computing
the penalty, however. Trea nent of the economic benefit
component in determining appropriate penalties in actions
against municipalities and publicly-owned utilities is discussed
further in Section It.A.3.b of this policy dealing with
settling cases for an amount less than the economic benefit
because of compelling public concerns.

-------
-4-
1 . Benefit from delayed costs
tn many instances, the economic advantage to be derived
from noncompliance is the ability to delay making the expend-
itures necesssary to achieve compliance. For example, a
facility which fails to install a scrubber will eventually
have to spend the money needed to install the scrubber in
order to achieve compliance. But, by deferring these capital
coats until EPA or a State takes an enforc nent action, that
facility has achieved an economic benefit. Among the types
of violations which may result in savings from deferred cost
are the following:
Failure to install equipment needed to meet emission
control standards.
0 Failure to effect process changes needed to lessen
pollution.
0 Testing violations, where the testing still must be
done to demonstrate achieved compliance.
0 Application of monitoring equipaien .
The economic benefit of delayed compliance should be
computed using the “Methodology for Computing the Economic
Benefit of Noncompliance,” which is Technical Appendix A
of the BEN User’s Manual . This document provides a method
for computing the econáiiic benefit of noncompliance based on
a .detailed economic analysis. The method is a refined version
of the method used in the previous Civil Penalty Policy
issued July 8, 1980, for the Clean Water Act and Title I of
the Clean Air Act. BEN is a computer program available to
the Regions for performing the analysis.
2. Benefit from avoided costs
Many kinds of violations enable a violator to avoid
permanently certain coats associated with compliance. These
include cost savings for:
0 Operation and maintenance of equipment that the violator
failed to install.
0 Failure to properly operate and maintain existing
control equipment (or process equipment if it affects
pollution control).
0 Failure to employ a sufficient number of adequately
trained staff.

-------
—5—
o Failure to establish or follow precautionary methods
required by regulations or permits.
o Process, operational, or maintenance savings from
removing pollution equipment.
° Failure to conduct testing which was once necessary
but is not any longer.
° Failure to install, operate, and maintain monitoring
equipment.
The benefit from avoided costs must also be computed
using methodology in Technical Appendix A of the BEN User’s
Manual .
The benefit from delayed and avoided costs is calculated
together, using the BEN computer program, to arrive at an
amount equal to the economic benefit of noncompliance for the
period from the first provable date of violation until the
date of compliance.
7 . Settling cases for an amount less than the economic
benefit
As noted above, settling for an amount which does not
remove the economic benefit of noncompliance can encourage
people to wait until EPA or the State begins an enforcement
action before complying. For this reason, it is general
Agency policy not to settle for less than this amount. There
are three general areas (described below) where settling for
less than the economic benefit may be appropriate. However,
in any individual case where the Agency decides to settle for
l ss than the economic benefit, the litigation team / must
detail those reasons in the case file and in any memoranda
accompanying the settlement. Following are circumstances
in which EPA can settle for less than the economic benefit:
a. Benefit component involves insignificant amount
It is clear that assessing the benefit component and
negotiating over it will often represent a substantial
commitment of resources. Such a commitment of resources may
not be warranted in cases where the macnitude of the benefit
2/ The litigation team consists of the attorneys assigned to
the case from EPA Headquarters, the EPA Region, the Department
of Justice Environmental Enforcement-. .Section, and the U.S.
Attorney’s Office. The recommendation of the litigation team
must be unanimous. Any of the litigation team members may
defer to the other members of the team. If a unanimous
position cannot be reached, the matter should be escalated
and a decision made by EPA and Department of Justice managers,
as required.

-------
-6-
componenc is -not likely to be significant, (e.g., not likely
to have a substantial financial impact on the violator,) For
this reason, the litigation team has the discretion not to
seek the benefit component where it appears that the amount
of that component is likely to be less than $5,000, In
exercising that discretion, the litigation team should
consider the following factors:
Impact on violator : The likelihood that assessing
the benefit compd ent as part of the penalty will
have a noticeable effect on the violator’s competitive
position or overall profits. If no such effect
appears likely, the benefit component should probably
not be pursued.
o The size of the gravity component : If the gravity
component is relatively small, i may not provide a
sufficient deterrent, by itself, to achieve the goals
of this policy. In situations like this, the case
development team should insist on including the benefit
component in order to develop an adequate penalty.
In certain classes, of violations, the penalty will
co.n.tajn no ecorrornic benefit component. Mast.of these classes
of violations are handled in the appendices to this penalty
policy, However, in a case of a non-recurring operation and
maintenance violation which is being handled under this
policy, the most appropriate way to settle the matter is
often a small penalty. It makes little sense to assess in
detail the economic benefit for each individual violation
because the benefit is likely to be so small. Therefore, for
these violations, the economic benefit component need not be
computed.
b. Compelling public concerns
The Agency recognizes that there may be some instances
where there are compelling public concerns that would not be
served by taking a case to trial. In such instances, it may
become nece88ary to consider settling a case for less than
the benefit component. This may- be done only if it is
absolutely necessary to preserve the countervailing public
interests. Such settlements might be appropriate where the
following circumstances occur:
Removal of the economic benefit would result in plant
closings, bankruptcy, or other extreme financial
burden, and there is an important public interest in
allowing the firm to continue in business. Alter-
native payment plans should be fully explored before
resorting to this option. Otherwise, the Agency will
give the perception that shirking one’s environmental

-------
—7—
responsibilities is a way to keep a failing enterprise
afloat. This exemption does not apply to situations
where the plant was likely to close anyway, or where
there is a likelihood of continued harmful noncompliance.
In enforcement actions against nonprofit public entities
such as municipalities and publicly-owned utilities,
assessment of the civil penalty threatens to disrupt
continued provision of essential public services.
c, Litigation practica].ities
Regardless of the type of violations a defendant has
committed or a particular defendant’s reprehensible conduct,
EPA can never demand more in civil penalties than the statutory
maxitnt n (twenty-five thousand dollars a day) multiplied by
the number of days of violation for each violation. Note
that for purposes of computing both the statutory maximum
penalty and the minim .nn settlement amount, the period of
noncompliance begins with the earliest provable day of vio-
lation and ends with the projected date of compliance. The
Agency realizes that in certain cases, it is highly unlikely
the EPA will be able to recover tj e full ecor oinLç benefit in
littgation,. This may be due to applicable precedent, competiñg
public interest consideraçions, or the specific facts, equities,
evidenciary issues or legal problems pertaining to a particular
case. For example, although a source is in violation of an
applicable standard and is, as such, legally liable, it could
have been working with a state agency in good faith to pursue
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, being told by the
State that it would get a SIP revision. Then, the source
learns that EPA will not approve the SiP revision. In such a
situation it may be unrealistic to eRpect EPA to obtain a
penalty settlement which it could not achieve through litiga-
tion. The litigation team may pursue a lower penalty amount
after receiving the approval of the Associate Enforcement
Counsel for Air.
d. Concurrent 9120 action
EPA will not usually seek to recover the economic benefit
of noncompliance from one violation under both 9113 and 9120.
Therefore, if a 9120 action is pending or has been concluded
against a source for a particular violation and a §113 penalty
settlement amount is being calculated for that same violation,
the economic benefit component need not be included for the
period from the date of issuance of the fl20 Notice of Noncom-
pliance to the date of compliance. Economic benefit can be
assessed from the date of the earliest provable violation
to the date the NON was issued.

-------
-8-
In these cases, EPA should not automatically settle the
§113 action for less than the economic benefit. The statute
allows dual recovery for the economic benefit, and so each
case must be Considered on its individual merits. Thus the
Agency may settle for less than the economic benefit in the
§113 action if the litigation team determines such a settlement
equitable and justifiable.
e. Offset for penalties paid to state or local agencies
for the same violation
While EPA will not automatically subtract any penalty
amount paid by a source to a state or local agency for the
same violation that is the basis for EPA’s enforcement action,
EPA may do so if circwnstances suggest that it is appropriate.
B. THE GRAVITY COMPONENT
As noted above, the Policy on Civil Penalties specifies
that a penalty, to achieve deterrence, should remove any
economic benefit of noncompliance, and should also include an
amount reflecting the seriousness of the vio1a jon, Section
113(b). instructs EPA to take these factors into conejder jon
in setting the appropriate penalty amount. Factors reflecting
the seriousness of the violation are referred to as the
“gravity component,” The purpose of this section of the
doci.jment is to establish an approach to quantifying the
gravity component,
Assigning a dollar figure to represent the gravity of
violation is a process which must, of necessity, involve the
consideration of a variety of factors and circumstances.
.Nevertheless the relative seriousness of different violations
•can be fairly accurately determined in most cases. This can
be accomplished by reference to the goals of the Clean Air
Act to protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air
resources and the facts of each particular violation. Thus,
linking the dollar amount of the gravity component to these
objective factors is a useful way of insuring that violations
of approximately equal seriousness are treated the same way.
The objective factors are designed to reflect considerations
listed in 5113(b) of the Clean Air Act as those appropriate
for the court in determining the amount of a civil penalty.
The considerations set out in the statute are: size of the
business, economic impact of the penalty on the business, and
seriousness of the violation (as well as any other factors.)
The specific objective factors in this civil penalty
policy designed to measure the seriousness of the violation
and reflecting the considerations of the Clean Air Act are
as follows: -

-------
-9—
Actual or possible harm : This factor focuses on
whether (and to what extent ) the activity of the
defendant actually resulted or was likely to result
in the emission of a pollutant in violation of the
level allowed by an applicable State Implementation
Plan or federal regulation.
o Importance to the regulatory scheme : This factor
focuses on the importance of the requirement to
achieving the goal of the Clean Air Act and its
implementing regulations. For example, the NSPS
regulations require owners and operators of new
sources to do emissions testing and report the
results within a certain time after start up.
If a source owner or operator does not report the
test result8, EPA would have no way of knowing
whether that source is complying with NSPS
requirements.
o Size of violator : The gravity component should be
increased, in pioportion to the size of the violator’s
business.
The assessment of the first gravity factor listed above,
actual or possible harm arising from a violation, is a complex
matter. For purposes of ranking violations according to
seriousness, it is possible to distinguish violations within
a category on the basis of certain considerations, including
the following:
o Amount of pollutant : Adjus nents for the amount
of the pollutant are appropriate.
0 Sensitivity of the environment : This factor focuses
on the location where the violation was committed.
For example, excessive emissions in a nonattainment
area are usually more serious than excessive
emissions in an attainment area.
o Toxicity of the pollutant : Violations involving highly
toxic pollutants are more serious and should result in
relatively larger penalties.
o The length of time a violation continues : The longer
a violation continues uncorrected, the greater is the
risk of harm.

-------
-10-
The following dollar amounts assigned to each factor
should be added together to arrive at the total gravity
Component:
1 . Actual or possible harm
a. Level of violation:
0-30% above standard $4,000
30-60% “ “ 8,000
60-90% “ “ 12,000
90-120% “ U 16,000
120-150% “ “ 20,000
150-180% “ 24,000
180-210% “ “ 28,000
210-240% “ 32,000
240-270% “ “ 36,000
270-300% “ “ 40,000
over 300% “ “ 40,000 + 4,000 for
each 30% increment
above standard
This factor should be uAed only for èmiaeiq violations,
and fiot procedural violations. Normally the highest documented
level of violation should be used. If that level, in the
opinion of the litigation team, is not representative of the
period of violation, then the highest documented level that
EPA determines to be representative e tould be used.
In addition, for sources with high allowable emission
rates, the litigation team may increase this factor based on
the gross volume of emissions, if that volume alone represents
a particular threat to public health or welfare.
b. Toxicity of the pollutant: Violations of NESHApa
regulations not handled by separate guidance or violations
involving other pollutants for which EPA has announced that
it intends to promulgate a NES}IAp: $15,000.
c. Sensitivity of environment (for SIP and NSPS cases only)
1.. Primary non-attainment area $15,000
ii. Secondary nonattajt n ent area 10,000
iii. Attainment area Class I $ 5,000
iv. Attainment area Class II or III 2,000
d. Length of time of violation

-------
—11—
To determine the length of time of violation, violations
should be aee m ed to be continuous from the first provable
date of violation until the date of the compliance demonetra..
tion if there have been no significant process or operational
changes. If the source has affirmative evidence, such as
Continuous nission Monitoring data, to show that the violation
was not continuous, appropriate adjustments should be made.
0-6 mo. $ 2,000
7-12 mo, 4,000
13-18 mo. 7,000
19-24 mo. 10,000
25-30 mo. 14,000
31-36 mo. 18,000
37-42 mo. 23,000
43-48 mo. 28,000
49-54 mo. 34,000
55-60 mo. 42,000
2. Importance to regulatory scheme
The following violations are so important to the regulatory
scheme that additional penalties must ensue:
Monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirement
violations: $15,000
(If there is more than one reportin g violation, multiply
the n ber of violations by $15,000.)
Operation and maintenance practices which result in
violations. $15,000
.3. Size of violator
Net current assets:
under $100,000: $1 ,000
$100,001 - $1,000,000: $2,000
$ 1 ,000,001 - $5,000,000: $8,000
$ 5,000,001 - $20,000,000: $12,000
$20,000,000 - $40,000,000: $20,000
$41,000,000 - $70,000,000: $40,000
over $70,000,000: $65,000
The process by which the gravity component was computed
must be memorialized in the case file. Combining the benefit
component with the gravity component yields the preliminary
deterrence emount.

-------
-12-
ILl. ADJUSTING THE GRAVITY COMPONENT
The second goal of the Policy on Civil Penalties is the
equitable treatment of the regulated community. One important
mechanism for promoting equitable treatment is to include the
benefit component discussed above in a.civil penalty assessment.
This approach would prevent violators from benefiting econo-
ically from their noncompliance relative to parties which
have complied with environinenca]. requiremen ,
In addition, in order to promote equity, the system for
penalty assessment must have enough flexibility to account
for the unique facts of each case. Yet it still must produce
consistent enough results to treat similarly situated violators
similarly. This is accomplished by identifying many of the
legitimate differences between cases and providing guidelines
for how to adjust the preliminary deterrence amount when
those facts occur. The application of these adjustments to
the preliminary deterrence amount prior to the commencement
of negotiation yields the initial minimt n penalty settlement
amount. During the course of negotiation, the litigation
team may further adjust this figure based on new information
learned during negotiations. to yield the .adjusted miniraujà
penalty amount.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that equitable treatment
is a two-edged sword. While it means that a particular
violator will receive no higher penalty than a similarly
situated violator, it also means that the penalty will be no
lower.
The purpose of this section is to establish additional
adjustment factors to promote flexibility while maintaining
-national consistency. This section sets out guidelines for
adjusting the gravity component to account for some factors
that frequently distinguish different cases, Those factors
are: degree of willfulness or negligence, degree of cooperation,
history of noncompliance, ability to pay, and other unique
factors. These adjustment factors apply only to the gravity
component and not to the economic benefit component, Violators
bear the burden of justifying mitigation adjustments they
propose based on these factors.

-------
-13-
For each factor there are three suggested ranges of
adjustment. The first, a 0-30% adjustment of the gravity
component, is within the absolute discretion of the litigation
team. The second, a 31-50% adjustment, is only appropriate
in unusual circumstances. The third range, beyond 50% and up
to 100% adjustment is only appropriate in rare circumstances.
Adjustments in the latter two ranges, unusual and rate circum-
stances, will be subject to scrutiny in any performance
audit. The litigation team may wish to reevaluate these
adjustment factors as the negotiations progress. This allows
the team to reconsider evidence used as a basis for the
penalty in light of new information.
The total gravity component can be adjusted upward or
downward by as much as 50% at the absolute discretion of the
litigation team based on one or a combination of factors.
However, if the full 50% adjustment is made by the litigation
team based on less than all, of the factors, no further adjust-
ment to the gravity component may be made based on these
adjustment factors within the absolute discretion of the
litigation team. For example, if the Litigation team decides
to lower the gravity component 30% based.on.a source’s
extremely cooperative attitude, and 20% based on ability to
pay, ,there tnay’be no further adjustment to the gravity.
component at the absolute discretion of the litigation team.
The litigation team may, however, make a larger adjustment in
an unusual or rare circumstance if the reasons for doing so
are documented in the litigation file and are approvedby
the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air. A detailed dis-
cussion of these factors follows.
A. DEGREE OF WILLFULNESS OR NEGLIGENCE
This factor should be used only to raise a penalty.
Although the Clean Air Act is a strict liability statute for
civil actions, so that willfulness or lack thereof is irrele-
vant to the determination of legal liability, this does not
render the violator’s willfulness or negligence irrelevant in
assessing equitable considerations Co arrive at an appro-
priate penalty. Knowing or willful violations can give rise
to criminal liability, and the lack of any negligence or
willfulness would indicate that no addition to the penalty
based on this factor i appropriate. Between these two
extremes, the willfulness or negligence of the violator
should be reflected in the amount of the penalty,
In assessing the degree of willfulness or negligence,
all of the following points should be considered:

-------
-14-
o How much control the violator had over the events
constituting the violation.
o The foreseeability of the events constituting the
violation.
o The level of sophistication within the industry in
dealing with compliance issues or the accessibj
licy of appropriate control technoLogy (if this infor-
mation is readily available). This should be balanced
against the technology..forcjng nature of the statute,
where applicable.
o Whether the violator in fact knew of the legal
requirement which was violated.
B. DEGREE OF COOPERATION
The degree of cooperation of the violator in remedying
the violation is an appropriate factor to consider in adjusting
the penalty downward. Such adjustments are mandated by both
the goals of equitable treatment and swift resolution of
environmental problems. There are two areas where this
fac tor is relevant.
1. Prompt reporting of noncompliance
Cooperation can be manifested by the violator promptly
reporting its noncompliance. Ass zning such self-reporting is
not required by law, such behavior should result in the
mitigation of the penalty.
2. Prompt correction of problems
The Agency should provide incentives for the violator to
commit to correcting the problem promptly. This correction
must take place before litiga iori is begun, except in
extraordinary circumstancea,3,’ But since these incentives
must be consistent with dete?rence, they must be used
Judiciously.
The circumstances under which the penalty is reduced
depend on the type of violation involved and the source’s
response to the problem. A straightforward reduction in the
amount of the gravity component of the penalty is most appro-
priate in those cases where either: 1) the environmental
3 /For the purpose of this document, litigation is deemed to
b gin when an Assistant United States Attorney files a complaint
in court.

-------
—15—
problem is actually corrected prior to initiating litLgation,
or 2) ideally, immediately upon discovery of the violation,
Under this approach, the reduction typically should be a
substantial portion of the unadjusted gravity component.
In general, the earlier the violator instituted corrective
action after discovery of the violation and the more complete
the corrective action instituted, the larger the penalty
reduction EPA will consider. Swift resolution of environmental
problems will be encouraged if the violator clearly sees that
it will be financially disadvantageous for the violator to
litigate without remedying noncompliance.
The Clean Air Act was conceived by Congress as a technology-
forcing statute, and so unavailability of applicable control
technology is not an excuse for not complying with emission
requirements. If appropriate pollution control equipment is
not readily available on the commercial market, a source
owner or operator must enlist skilled engineers to devise new
kinds of pollution control equipment that will do the job.
The uniqueness and difficulty presented by the requirement to
control the emissior18 from a particular source, however, will
affect the size of penalty the Agency deems apprQpriate. If
a source o zner has been spending money and effort in a good
faith, doci nnentable progrçn to install equipment that will
control the source’s air pollution but the source remains out
of compliance even after these efforts, the litigation team
may decide to reduce the gravity component. The technological
efforts chosen for compliance must be viewed as having a good
chance for compliance in order to have this factor count
toward mitigation,
Ordinarily, a contractor’s failure to perform as required
by the contract is not considered to be a factor out of a
source’s control. A source must bear the responsibility of
selecting a contractor reliable enough to perform the required
tasks satisfactorily.
In all instances, the facts and rationale justifying the
penalty reduction must be recorded in the case file and included
in any memoranda accompanying settlement.
C. HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE
Where a party has violated a similar environmental
requirement before, this is usually clear evidence that the
party was not deterred by a previous governmental enforcement
response. Unless one of the violations was caused by factors
entirely out of the control of the violator, this is an
indication that the penalty should. be raised.

-------
-16-
In deciding how large these adjustments should be, the
case development team should consider the following points:
o How similar the previous violation was.
0 How recent the previous violation was.
° The n .m ber of previous violations.
0 Violator’s response to previous violation(s) in regard
to correction of the previous problem and attempts to
avoid repetition.
Nevertheless a violation should generally be considered
“similar” if a previous enforcement response should have
alerted the party to a particular type of compliance problem.
Some facts that indicate a “similar violation” was Committed
are as follows:
o The same permit was violated.
o The same substance was inyolved.
o Th same process pptn s were th source of the violation.
o The same statutory or regulatory provision was violated.
0 A similar act or omission (e.g. same kind of emission
limitation from same piece of equipment.)
For purposes of this section, a “prior violation” includes
any act or omission for which a formal state, local, or federal
enforcement response has occurred (e.g., notice of violation,
.zarning letter, complaint, consent decree, consent agreement,
or final order). It also includes any act or omission for
which the violator has previously been given written notifi-
cation, however informal, that the Agency believes a violation
exists.
In the case of large corporations with many divisions or
wholly-owned subsidiaries, it is sometimes difficult to
determine whether a previous instance of noncompliance should
trigger the adjustments described in this section. New
ownership often raises similar problems. In making this
determination the litigation team should ascertain who in
the organizational unit had or reasonably should have had
control or oversight responsibility for violative conduct.
In those cases where there is a close relationship between
defendants, the violation will be considered part of the
compliance history.

-------
-17-
In general, the litigation team should begin with the
asst ni1ption that if the same corporation was involved, the
adjustments for history of noncompliance should apply. In
addition, the team should be wary of a party changing operators
or shifting responsibility for compliance to different groups
as a way of avoiding increased penalties. The Agency may
find a consistent pattern of noncompliance by many divisions
or subsidiaries of a corporation even though the facilities
are at different geographic locations. This often reflects,
at best, a corporate-wide indifference to environmental
protection. Consequently, the adjustment for history of
noncompliance should probably apply unless the violator can
demonstrate that the other violating corporate facilities are
under totally independent control.
D. ABILITY TO PAY
The Agency will generally not request penalties that are
clearly beyond the means of the violator. Therefore EPA
should consider the ability to pay a penalty in arriving at a
specific final penalty assessment. (With regard to the Benefit
Component, this consideration is given under Section lI.A ,.3.b.)
At the same time, it is important thatthe regulated community
not see, the violation of environmental req’uireraents as a way
of aiding a financially-troubled business. EPA reserves the
option, in appropriate circ .nnstances, of seeking a penalty
that might contribute to a company going out of business,
For example, it is unlikely that EPA would reduce a
penalty where a facility refuses to correct a serious violation.
The same could be said for a violator with a long history of
previous violations. That long history would demonstrate
that less severe measures are ineffective.
The financial ability adjustment will normally require a
significant amount of financial information specific to the
violator. The litigation team should assess this factor
after commenc ent of negotiation with the source if the
source raises it as an issue.
The burden to denonstrate inability to pay, as with the
burden of denonstratirig the presence of any mitigating
circ nstanceg, rests on the defendant. If the violator fails
to provide sufficient information, then the litigation
team should disregard this factor in adjusting the penalty.
The Office of Enforcement Policy (NEIC) has developed the
capability to assist the Regions in determining a firm’s
ability to pay. This is done through the computer program,
ABEL.

-------
-18-
When it is determined that a violator cannot afford the
penalty prescribed by this policy, a next step is to consider
a delayed payment schedule. Such a schedule might even be
Contingent upon an increase in sales or some other indicator
of improved business. EPA’s computer program, ABEL, can
calculate a delayed payment amount for up to three years.
Consider straight penalty reductions as a last recourse :
If this approach is necessary, the reasons for the litigat [ n
team’s conclusion as to the size of the necessary reduction
should be made a part of the formal enforcement file and the
rnemorandi accompanying the settlement. 4 !
Consider joinder of the violator’s individual owners :
This is appropriate if joinder is legally possible and
justified under the circumstances. Joinder is not legally
possible for SIP cases unless the prerequisites of §113 of
the Clean Air Act have been met - - issuance of an NOV to the
person and documentation of violation thirty days after NOV
issuance. The circumstances where individual joinder is
appropriate should be considered to be present only when
discovery shows that stockholders have used the.corporate
form as a subterfuge to avoid personal liability.,
Regardless of the Agency’s determination of an appropriate
penalty amount to pursue based on ability to pay con8iderat ions
the violator is still expected to comply with the law.
E. OTHER UNIQUE FACTORS
The litigation team has absolute discretion to adjust
penalties up or down for factors not anticipated here.
Adjustments beyond the absolute discretion range in this
category, as in other adjustment categories, must be approved
by the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air. In addition,
they will be allowed primarily for compelling public policy
Concerns or litigation practicali ie 9 as discussed in Section
II.A.3.c., above. The rationale for the reduction must be
expressed in writing in the case file and in any memoranda
accompanying the settlement.
4 /If a firm fails to pay the agreed-to penalty in a judicial.
final order, then the Agency must follow the Federal Claims
Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. §3701 et seq., procedures for
obtaining the penalty amount.

-------
-19-
IV. CALCULATING A PENALTY IN CASES WITH MORE THAN ONE VIOLATION
EPA often takes an enforcement action against a stationary
source for more than one violation of the Clean Air Act. If
the violations are emission violations and the the result of
separate activities, then separate penalties should be calcu-
lated according to the method set forth in this policy above
and added together to arrive at the total minim n settlement
amount.
For example, consider the case of a plant which makes
laminated particle board. The particle board plant is found
to emit particulateg in violation of the SIP particulate
emission limit and the laminating line which laminates the
particle board with a vinyl covering is found to emit VOC in
violation of the SIP VOC emission limit. The penalty for the
particulate violation should be calculated using the economic
benefit of not complying with that limit (capital cost of
particulate control, etc. determined by running the BEN
computer model) and then the gravity component for this
viol cjon calculated using all the factors in the penalty
policy. After the particulate violation penalty is determined,
th e’VOC violation should calculated in the same manner. The
two penalties would then be added together to arrive at the
total penalty.
This penalty calculation should be contrasted with the
case where there is more than one violation, but only one is
ar emission violation and the others are procedural violations
related in some way to the emission violation. For example,
consider a case where, pursuant to Section 114, EPA issues a
request for information about SO 2 emissions to a source which
has a coal-burning boiler. The source does not respond.
Four months later, EPA issues an order under 5113(a) requiring
the source to comply with the 5114 letter. The source does
not respond. Six months later, EPA inspects the source and
determines that the source is violating the SIP SO 2 emission
1 im i t.
In this case, separate economic benefits should be
calculated, if applicable. Thus, if the source enjoyed any
benefit from not responding to the §114 letter or obeying the
§113(a) order, that should be calculated. If riot, only the
economic benefit from the SO 2 emission violation should be
determined. In determining the gravity component, the penalty
should be calculated as follows:

-------
-20-
1. Actual or possible harm
a. level of violation - use only emission violation
b. toxicity of pollutant - use only emission violation
c. sensitivity of environment - use only emission
violation
d. length of time of violation
separate calculation of time for each violation.
§114 violation continues to run even after §113(a)
order is issued until these requirements are satisfied.
2. Importance to regulatory scheme
Reporting requirements:
2 reporting requirement violations at $15,000 each
Operation and maintenance violations - if SO 2 emission
violation is the result of O&M problems, add $15,000.
3. Size of violator
One figure based on the source’s assets.
V. MITIGATION PROJECTS IN SETTLEMENT OF GOVERNMENT CLAIMS
The United States of America has entertained, as part of
Clean Air Act enforcement case settlements in the past,
defendants’ proposals to mitigate cash penalty demands in
exchange for the performance of environmentally beneficial
projects. This practice of giving environmental “credits” is
expressly discouraged in all cases, and will be considered a
viable settlement option only in exceptional circumstances.
In situations where they are allowed, the acceptance of
mitigation projects for environmentally beneficial expenditures
is subject to certain conditions. The Agency has designed
these conditions to prevent the abuse of this procedure.
Most of the conditions below applied in the past, but some
are new. All of these conditions must be met before mitigation
projects may be accepted:
(1) The activity must be initiated in addition to all
requlatory compliance obligations.
The project may not be an activity which is otherwise
required by law. The project may not be a substitute for
full compliance -- it must be designed to provide an
environmental benefit beyond the benefits of full compliance.

-------
-21-
(2) The activity is most likely to be an acceptable
basis for mitigating penalties if it closely addresses the
environmental effects of the defendant’s violation.
Preferably, the project will address the risk or harm
caused by the violations at issue. In general, qualifying
activities must provide a discernible response to the
perceptible risk or harm caused by defendant’s violations
which are the focus of the government’s enforcement action.
(3) The defendant’s cost of undertaking the activity,
taking into account the tax benefits that accrue, must be
commensurate with the degree of mitigation.
In order to attain the deterrent objectives of the civil
penalty policy, the amount of the penalty mitigation must
reflect the actual cost to the defendant. With consideration
of tax benefits, the actual cost of the project may exceed
the value of the mitigation.
(4) The activity must demonstrate a good-faith commitment
to statutory compliance.
One test of good faith is the degree to which the
defendant takes. the initiative to identify and commence
8pecific, potential mitigation projects. In addition, the
project must be primarily designed to benefit the environment
rather than to benefit the defendant.
(5) Mitigation based on the defendant’s acitvity must
not detract significantly from the general deterrent effect
of the settlement as a whole.
The government should continue to consider mitigation
.projects as the exception rather than the rule. Efforts
should be made to eliminate any potential perception by the
regulated community that the government lacks the resolve to
impose significant penalties for substantial violations. The
government should seek penalties in conjunction with mitigation
activities which deter both the specific defendant and also
the entire regulated community. Accordingly, every settlement
should include a aubetantia]. monetary penalty component.
(6) Judicially-enforceable consent decrees must meet
the statutory and public interest criteria for consent decrees
and cannot contain provisions which would be beyond the power
of the court to order.
A proposed consent decree should not include provisions
which would be beyond the power of the court to order under
the particular statute which had been violated. Additional
guidance on the appropriate scope of relief might be found in
the statute, the legislative history or the implementing
regulations.

-------
-22-
The Agency should exercise case-by_case judgment in
deciding whether to accept a mitigation project based upon
the above criteria and, in addition, based upon consideration
of the difficulty of monitoring the Implementation of the
proposed project in light of the anticipated benefits of the
project.
VI. EXAMPLES
Example 1:
I. Facts:
Company A runs its manufacturing operations with power
produced by its own coal-fired boilers. The boilers are major
sources of sulfur dioxide. The State Implementation Plan has
a sulfur dioxide emission limitation for each boiler of .68
lbs. per million B.T.U. The boilers were inspected by EPA
on March 19, 1983, and the SO 2 emission rate was 2.53 lbs.
per million B.T.IJ. A NOV was issued for the SO 2 viola iong on
April 10, 1983. EPA again inspected Company A on June 2, 1983
and found the SO 2 emission race to be unchanged, in excess of
the allowable emission rate. Company A h’ad never installed
ar y pol.lutiorj control equipment on its boilers, even though
personnel from the state pollution control agency had contacted
Company A and informed it that the company was subject to state
air pollution regulations, The state had issued an adminis-
trative order on September 1 , 1981 for SO 2 emission violations
at the same boilers. The order required compliance with app].i
cable regulations, but Company A had never complied with the
state order. Company A is located in a primary nonattajnment
area. Company A has net current assets of $760,000.
tI. Computation of penalty
A. Economic benefit component
EPA used the BEN computer model in the standard mode. To
use this computer model, the Region had to supply values for
each of six parameters. These are:
1. Initial Capital Investment
2. Initial Annual 0&M Expense
3. First Month of Noncompliance
4. Compliance Date
5. Penalty Payment Date
6. One-Time Nondeprecjab].e Expenditure

-------
—23—
If the company had provided EPA with data specific to it,
EPA could have input additional parameters. However, since the
company did not do 80, EPA used standard values for the following
parameters:
1 . Investment Tax Credit Race
2. Income Tax Rate
3. Inflation Rate
4. Discount Race
5. Useful Life
6. Amount Financed with Industrial Development Bonds
The economic benefit component calculated by the computer
model was $243,500.
B. Gravity component
1. Actual or possible harm
a. Amount of pollutant: between 90-120%
above standard $16,000
b. Toxicity of pollutant: No penalty. for this
component.
c. Sensitivity of the environment: $15,000
d. Length of time of violation.
Measured from state order issuance on September 1
1981 to compliance date in consent decree,
September 1, 1985. (If consent decree or
judgment order is filed at a lacer date, this
element, as well as well as elements in economic
benefit component must be recomputed.)
48 mon. - $28,000
2. Importance to regulatory scheme.
No penalty for this component because violation is
not reporting requirement or operation & maintenance
problem.
3. Net current assests: $2,000.
All the parts of the gravity component are now added
to yield the preliminary deterrence amount:

-------
-24-
S 16,000
1 5 ,000
28,000
61 ,000
6Looo
This is added to the economic benefit component;
$243,500 economic benefit
+61 ,000 gravity
$304, 5 GO
C. Adjustment Factors
1 . Degree of willfulness/negligence
Because Company A was on notice of its violations and,
moreover, disregarded the state administrative order
to comply with applicable regulations, the gravity
component is increased 20%.
20% of $61,000 — $12,200
2. Degree of Coopeiat•ion
No adjustments were made in the category because
Company A was not cooperative.
3. History of noncompliance
Gravity component increased 20% here because Company
A violated state order issued for same violation.
20% of $61,000 — $12,200.
4. Ability to pay
No adjustment here because Company A did not provide
EPA with financial information indicating inability
to pay.
Since each gravity factor was adjusted by no more
than 30% and the total gravity component by no more
than 50%, this adjustment can be made at the absolute
discretion of the litigation team.
Initial penalty figure: $291 ,500 initial penalty
+24,400 adjustments
$31 5,900
Company A paid the U.S. Tr sury $315,900.

-------
—25—
Example 2:
I,. Facts:
Company B produces charcoaL from wood waste at its
plant, located in an attainment Class II area. Company B is
a major source of particulate emissions. It has current net
assets of $74,000. Regulations in the State Implementation
Plan limit particulate emissions to 3.39 lbs. per hour.
Company B installed a ftniie incinerator at its plant in 1978.
On November 1 , 1982, EPA inspected Company B and found the
particulate emission rate to be 4.27 lbs. per hour. EPA
issued an NOV on January 5, 1983. An EPA inspection on
March 10, 1983, showed that Company B Continued to be in
violation.
Company B had discovered, when it initially began to try
to control the emissions at its charcoal plant in 1975, that
no appropriate control equi nent was available for sale
anywhere. It had to design and build all the pollution
control equipment it needed to install. Company B began
doing research and planning and testing various configurations
o f .une incinerators to try to find the soluxion to its
particulate emission problem. 1n 1978, Company finally
believed it had •come up with an effective control system and
that it was in compliance with state regulations. In 1983,
off-the-shelf technology to control emissions from Company
B’s charcoal operation still did not exist. As soon as the
Company received its NOV, however, it hired engineering
consultants to design a more effective duct system for the
f zne incinerator. These consultants were successful in
designing a system which was installed in January, 1984.
Company B performed an EPA-observed stack test on February 1,
1984 which showed a particulate emission rate of 3.05 1b8.
er hour.
Company B has been in a very strained financial situation
for the last three years. The company’s management has been
considering filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Company B has not made a profit for the past two years.
It. Computation of penalty
A. Benefit component
The economic benefit was calculated by running the
BEN computer model (See Example 1 for inputs.)
The economic benefit derived from the computer
calculation was: $43,480.

-------
-26-
B. Gravity cornponen t
1 . Actual or possible harm
a. Amount above the standard:
4.27 lbs./hr. is approximately 20 above 3.39
lbs./hr. so this component is $4,000
b. Toxicity of pollutants: No penalty here.
c. Sensitivity of environment; Class II - attainment
area $2,000
d. Length of time of violation
November 1, 1982 - February 1, 1984: 15 months
of violation: $7,000
2. Importance to regulatory scheme
No penalty here because violation not connected
with operation and maintenance practices or
reporting requirements
3.’ Size of violator
Net current assets - $74,000 $1,000
Total gravity factors: $14,000;
Preliminary Deterrence Amount
Preliminary Deterrence Amount 43,480
+14,000
$57 ,48O
C. Flexibility - Adjustment Factors
1. Degree of willfulness or negligence
No adjustment upward here for willfulness or negligence.
2. Degree of Cooperation
Because Company B was so prompt in correcting its
problem once it received the NOV, unlike Company
A, and because of Company B’s good efforts to
comply, the gravity component was mitigated by
50 .
50% of $14,000 $7,000

-------
-27-
$ 14,000
- 7 MOO
$ __ _ 0 _
3. History of noncompliance
No adjustment here because Company B had no previous
history of noncompliance.
4. Ability to Pay
Because of Company B’s financial situation, the
gravity component was reduced 50%.
$ 7,000
- 7 ,000
The gravity component, in this case, is reduced
to 0.
Because the litigation team wanted to mitigate the
gravity component by more than 30%,.the PAheadquarters
attorney discussed the facts of the case with the Associate
Enforcement Counsel for Air and obtained the AEC’s concurrence
on this mitigation before settlement negotiations began.
The initial penalty figure presented at settlement
negotiation was $43,480. If Company B raises its ability to
pay during settlement negotiations, the case development team
will consider it at that time in the context of Section
tI.A.3.b. That adjustment factor has already been given full
consideration with regard to the Gravity Component.
Example 3:
I,. Facts:
Company C, located in a primary nonattainment area,
commenced construction in January 1982. It began its opera-
tions in April 1983. It runs a coal-fired boiler subject to
the NSPS regulations for fossil-fuel-fired steam generators
(40 CFR Part 60 Subpart D). The boiler is a major source of
particulates and SO 2 . Subpart D requires that boiler emissions
of SO 2 not exceed 1 .2 lbs. per million BTU. General NSPS
regulations require that a source owner or operator subject
to NSPS fulfill certain notificatjo and recordkeeping functions
(40 CFR §60.7) , conduct performance tests (40 CFR §60.8) and
conduct specified continuous monitoring (40 CFR §60.13).

-------
-28-
Company C is believed to be in compliance for SO 2
based on coal-sampling data and the fact that it has installed
the proper pollutjo control equipment. However, although
§60.3 requires Company C to test within 180 days of startup,
or by October 1983, the company had no conducted performance
tests as of September 1 , 1984.
Company C also failed to notify EPA of the date it
commenced construction within 30 days after such date
(February, 1982) or the date of anticipated startup between
30-60 days prior to such date (March, 1983) or the date of
actual startup within 15 days after such date (April, 1983)
(40 CFR §60.7). Continuous emission monitoring equipment
was installed, but continuous monitoring certification has
never been done, and so the requirement that it be done
within 30 days after performance testing (November, 1983)
was not fulfilled either. Company C is now sending EPA CEM
reports.
Company C ignored two letters from EPA, one dated
November, 1983 and one dated March, 1984 informing it that
it was subject to NSPS requirenent.g. It did negotiate with
EPA after the complaint was filed an September i 1984, and
agreed to a consent decree requiring all testing and reporting
to be done by December 1, 1984. Company C has assets of
57,000,000.
It. Computation of penalty
A. Benefit component
The Region determined that the economic benefit component
was very likely to be less than $5,000. Therefore,jt was not
calculated.
B. Gravity component
1. Actual or possible harm
a. Amount of pollutant: not an emission violation
- 0.
b. Toxicity of pollutant: No penalty for this
component
c. Sensitivity of the environment: $15,000
d. Length of time of violation
1) Performance testing: October, 1983 -
December 1984: 14 rnonths

-------
-29-
2) Failure to report commencement of construc-
tion February 1982 - November 1983: 21
months (date of EPA’s first letter to Company)
3) Failure to report actual startup April, 1983 -
November 1983: 7 months
4) Failure to perform CEM certification November
1983 - December 1984: 13 months
Total: 14 + 21 + 7 + 13 55 months —
$20 ,000
The second and third elements are ended in November,
1983 even though the source never sent the notices because,
in November, 1983, EPA informed the source that it had actual
notice, which might appear to make notice by the source
unnecessary.
2. Importance to regulatory scheme
Reporting requirements violations: $15,000
3. SIze of violatot: $12,000
All the parts of the gravity component are now added:
0
0
15,000
20,000
15,000
12,000
62 ,000
This is added to the economic benefit component
0 economic benefit
62,000 gravity
$62,000 preliminary deterrence amount
C. Adjustment factors
1. Degree of willfulness/negligence
Because Company C was on notice of its violations
and disregarded the requirements to comply, even
though it would have been easy for them to do
so, the gravity component is increased 30%.
30% of $62,000— $18,600

-------
-30-
2. Degree of Cooperation
No adjustments were made in this category
because Company C was not cooperative.
3. History of noncompliance
No past history of noncompliance
4. Ability to pay
No adjustment here because Company C did not
provide EPA with financial information indicating
inability to pay.
Total penalty
$62,800 preliminary deterrence amount
18,600 adjustment
$80,600 initial penalty figure
Company C paid the U.S. Treasury $80600.
VII. CONCLUSION
- - Treating similar sLtua tons in a similar fashion is
central to the oredibilicy of EPA’s enforcenent effort and to
the Success of achieving the goal of equitable treatment.
This doc uiient has established several mechanisms to promote
such consistency. Yet it still leaves enough flexibility for
tailoring the penalty to particular ci-rcunistanceg. Perhaps
the most important mechanisms for achieving consistency are
the systematic methods for calculating the benefit component
and gravity component of the penalty. Together, they add up
to the preliminary deterrence amount. The doc.rnent also sets
out guidance on uniform approaches for applying adjustment
factors to arrive at an initial penalty amount prior to
beginning settlenent negoetat ions or an adjusted penalty
amount after negotiations have begun.
Nevertheless, if the Agency is to promote consistency,
it is essential that each case file contain a complete
description of how each penalty was developed. This descrip-
tion should cover how the preliminary deterrence amount was
calculated and any adjustments made to the preliminary
deterrence amount. It should also describe the facts and
reasons which support such adjustments. Only through such
complete doctnnentatjon can enforcement attorneys, program
staff and their managers learn from each other’s experience
and promote the fairness required by the Policy on Civil
Penalties .

-------
—31—
• _
omas • A s, Jr.
Assistant Administrator Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
Craig P ter
esistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

-------
APPENDIX I
Penalty Policy for Violations of Certain Clean Air Act
Permit Requirements for the Canstruction or
Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
I. Introduction
EPA’S Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty
Policy applies generally to stationary sources of air pollu-
tion which violate requirements enforceable under Section 113
of the Clean Air Act when such violations are the result of a
failure to make capital expenditures and/or failure to employ
operation and mathtenance procedures which are necessary to
achieve compliance. The general policy does not, however,
specifically address violations of permit requirements related
to the construction or modification of major stationary
sources under the prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) program and the nonattainment area new source review
progam.
Tl is document outlines a penalty policy which applies to
certain permit-related violations of the Clean Air Act and
provides a method of calculating a minimtnii settlement amount
for such violations. This “Permit Penalty Policy” was origi-
nally issued in February 1981 to deal with a subject area not
covered by the 1980 penalty policy. It has been revised for
inclusion in the 1987 policy to reflect more realistic penalty
amounts.
As illustrated by the examples, a source may have
violated a new source requirement which makes it subject to
this Permit Penalty Policy, and, in addition, violated a
regulation subject to the general policy or another appendix.
If this is the case, the Permit Penalty Policy should be used
to find the minimum settlement figure for the permit viola-
tion(s) and the general policy or applicable appendix should
be used to establish a penalty amount for the other violation(s).
These two figures should be added together to produce an
appropriate overall settlement amount. It is also important
to note that the policy outlined in this document, like the
general stationary source civil penalty policy, is used to
set a minimum settlement figure. Therefore, the penalty
actually negotiated for can always be higher than the figure
derived through use of this Permit Penalty Policy.

-------
-2-
U. The Permit Penalty Policy
The Permit Penalty Policy covers cases involving sources
which begin construction or operation without first obcathing
the required PSD or nonattairnnent new source permit, as well
as those which construct or operate in violation of such
valid permits. Construction proceeding in compliance with an
invalid permit is considered to be, in the context of this
penalty policy, construction without a permit.
In these cases, when the source is operating and has
enjoyed an economic benefit from noncompliance, that benefit
should be calculated as directed in the general stationary
source civil penalty policy. As directed by the general
policy, however, the Regional Office may decide not to cal.
culate t he economic benefit if that office decides that the
economic benefit is likely to be below $5,000. The gravity
component is then calculated based on the matrix contained in
this permit penalty policy. Construction in the absence of a
permit or in violation of a permit has been assigned a scale
of dollar values on a matrix. The matrix also provides for
the assessment of an additional penalty for certain specified
violations of substantive permit preconditions or requirements,
The appropriate dollar value for a violation is dependent on
an estimate of the total cost of air pollution control at
those facil,ities of the source for which the permit is
required. 1 1 This valu is then multiplied by the number of
months orviolation. 2 / When there are multiple permit-related
11 “Total cost of air pollution control” should include, where
r ].evant, pollution control equipment costs, design costs,
operation and maintenance costs, differential coat of complying
fuel v. noncomplying fuel, and other costs pertaining to
adequate control of the new source. Total cost is to be
determined by examination of what would have been required as
BACT (for a PSD violation) or LAER (in the case of an Offset
Policy or Part D violation). When construction is done in
phases, the operative amount is the total cost of air pollution
controls for the entire project. If a source has installed
partial control before the enforcement action commenced, that
part of the cost can be subtracted from the total costs.
2/ Month-by-month accrual of penalties was selected for
purposes of convenience and for consistency with the general
policy. Any fraction of a month in violation is counted as a
full month of violation unless circumstances present a case
for mitigation of this rule.

-------
-3-
violations, a penalty figure is calculated for each violation
and the individual penalty figures are added together to
produce one !niniinujn settlement figure. In those cases where
a Source subject to a valid permit violates only the require-
ments of Section 173(1) and/or Section 173(3) (requirements
for construction permits in nonattainment areas) , the appro-
priate penalty amount is determined by reference only to the
matrix column(s) citing the violation(s).
The economic benefit component and the gravity component
are added together to determine the preliminary deterrence
amount. This initial amount should then be adjusted, using
the general stationary source civil penalty policy factors
which take into consideration individual equitable considera-
tions (Part III of the general policy.) This will yield the
initial penalty figure.
The period of civil penalty liability will, of course,
depend upon the nature and circumstances of the violation.
For example, if a source has begun actual construction without
a required permit or under an invalid permit, the penalty
peri9d begins on the date the source began con8truction and
continues either until the .source obtains a valid permit,
notifies the State or EPA that it has permanen t ] .y ceased
construction and the project has been abandoned, or the State
issues a federally enforceable construction permit containing
operating restrictions which keep the source below the new
source review applicability thresho].d.3/ A temporary cessation
in construction does not toll the running of the penalty period.
The Agency may, however, consider mitigation of the calculated
civil penalty if a source ceases construction within a reason-
able time after being notified of the violtion and does not
res mie construction until a valid permit is issued. If a
source violates a permit condition, the period of penalty
Uability for purposes of calculating a settlement figure
begins on the first date the violation can be documented and
will cease when the violation is corrected.
EPA realizes that in certain cases, it is highly unlikely
that the Agency will be able to obtain the full amount of the
initial penalty figure in litigation. This may be due to
applicable precedent, competing public interest considerations,
3 /The period of liability is not be be confused with the
period of continuing violation for Section 113 notice of
violation (NOv) purposes. A source which constructs without
a valid permit is in continuing violation of the Clean Air
Act for NOV purposes until it receives a valid permit or it
dismantles the new con8truction.

-------
-4-
or the specific facts, equities, or evidenciary issues
pertathing to a particular case. In such a situation It is
unrealistic to expect EPA to obtain a penalty settlement
which it could not achieve through litigation. The liti-
gation team must receive the approval of the Associate
Enforcement Counsel for Air in order to propose settling for
less than the minimum penalty amount from the matrix because
of litigation practicalities.

-------
-5—
PERMIT PENALTY POLICY MATRIX
MINIMUM SETTLEMENT FIGURES
( per month of violation)
PSD SOURCES
TOTAL COST OF AIR
POLLUTON CONTROL FOR
NEW OR MODIFIED
SOURCE ($ THOUSANDS )
less than 50
50-150
150-500
500-1 ,500
1 5OO-5,0oo
5,000-15,000
15,000-50,000
over 50,000
CONSTRUCTION OR
OPERATION WITHOUT
A PERMIT OR IN
VIOLATION OF A
VALID PERMIT
$ 2,000
4,000
7,000
11 ,000
16,000
22,000
29,000
37,000
I NCREMENT
E CCEEDED
$ 7,000
11 ,000
16,000
18,000
21 ,000
25,000
31 ,000
.39,000
TOTAL COST OF AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
FOR NEW OR MODIFIED
SOURCE ($ THOUSANDS )
less than 50
50-1 50
150-500
500-1 ,500
,500-5,00 0
5,000-15,000
15,000-50,000
over 50,000
CONS TRUCTI ON
OR OPERATION
WITHOUT A
PERMIT OR
IN VIOLATION
OF A VALID
PERMIT
$ 2,000
4,000
7,000
11,000
16,000
22 ,000
29,000
37,000
FAILURE TO
SAT Is ri
S173(1) OR
OBTAIN
OFFS ETS
$ 3,000
4,000
6 ,000
9,000
11 ,000
13,000
15,000
17,000
VIOLATION OF
SECTION 173(3)
OR CONDITION 2
$ 2,000
3,000
4,000
4,000
5,000
7,000
11 ,000
12,000
PART D AND OFFSET INTERPRETATIVE RULING
SOURCES
( Add ni.nnbers
when multiple
categories apply )

-------
-6-
EXAMPLE CASES
The foLlowing hypothetical cases illustrate how the matrix is
used to calculate a minimi.nn settlement figure.
PSD SOURCE
I. Facts
On July 1, 1985, an existing major source began construc-
tion of a modification to its plywood manufacturing plant.
The modification will result in a significant net emission
increase of particulate matter. The source had not obtained
or filed for a PSD permit as of the date construction began.
On July 2, 1985, EPA investigators discovered the
construction during a routine inspection of the plywood plant.
The EPA Regional Office determined that the modification was
subject to PSD review and issued a Notice of Violation on
August 1, 1985. The NOV cited the PSD regulations and outlined
possible enforcement alternatives.
The source. received the NOV on August 5, 1q85, and
concacted the Regional Office on August 10, 1985. On
August 30, 1985, the Region and the source held a conference
at which the source stated that it had been aware of the need
for PSD review and permitting prior to• con8truction. The
source also stated that it would file an application for a
permit but that it would not cease construction during the
review process.
On October 1 , 1985, the source filed a PSD application.
During the review process the Region discovered that the
source had no plans to install pollution control devices.
The Region also determined that without BACT, the modification’s
particulate emissions would result in an exceedance of the
particulate matter increment in the source’s area of impact.
The source, when informed of the BACT problem, indicated it
would install the necessary controls.
However, throughout the review process the source
continued construction of the modification. On December 1
1985, the source began operation of the modified source
without the required permit and without controls.
On January 15, 1986, the source was issued a PSD permit.
On February 28, 1986, the source ceased operation of the
plywood plant to connect the pollution control equip ent
called for in the PSD permit. -.the.source res .m ed operation
on March 15, 1986, in a manner consistent with the PSD permit
conditions.

-------
-7—
II. Computation of Penalty
A. Benefit Component
The penalty calculation begins with a calculation of the
economic benefit of noncompliance (using the BEN model) for
the period of operation without a permit (December 1 , 1985 -
January 15, 1986). BEN calculated a penalty of $6,400.
B. Gravity Component
This component of the penalty is calculated by initially
assessing the total cost of air pollution control equipment
at the modification. For purposes of this ex nple, assume
BACT costs $140,000.
Next, the PSD Matrix must be consulted and the type and
number of matrix categories determined. In this example the
source (1) began construction without a permit, (2) operated
the plant without a PSD permit and (3) exceeded the growth
increment for particulate matter. Therefore, this source is
subject to both of the columns of dollarvalueg under the
heading “?SDSources,”
Once the type, number and dollar values of the penalty
are determined, these figures are multiplied by the number of
months in violation. The sums are then added together to
produce the matrix penalty amount.
In this example, the source’s period of construction
without a permit runs from July 1, 1985, until operations
began on December 1 ,1985 (5 months). The period of operation
-without a permit runs from the time the source began operation
(December 1 , 1985) to the date the source received a permit
(January 15, 1986) (2 months). The source also exceeded the
area growth increment for particulate matter during the
period of operation from December 1, 1985, to February 28,
1986 (3 months) .4/
4/ It is important to note that some aspects of the matrix do
not necessarily track the statutory provisions regarding
violations. For example, there is no Clean Air Act provision
which makes increment exceedance, in and of itself, a violation
by an individual source. (The SIP must protect the increment.
The method used is PSD review with permit conditions such as
BACT, fuel use limitatjon , etc.) However, as a portion of
the gravity component, considering the seriousness of the
violation if a source operates and thereby violates the
increment due to failure to go through PSD review as required,
an added penalty in appropriate,

-------
-8-
The matrix penalty figure for this source’s PSD related
violations based on a $140,000 total cost of control estimate,
is:
- for the 5 month period of construction without a permit,
5 x $4,000 $20,000
- for the 2 month period of operation without a permit,
2 x $4,000 $8,000
- for the 3 month period of operation during which the
increment was exceeded,
3 x $11,000 — $33,000
- matrix penalty figure —
$20,000 + $8,000 + $33,000 — $61,000
This is added to the economic benefit component
$ 6,400 economic benefit
61 ,000 gravity
r67,400 preliminary deterrence
amount.
C. Adjustment Factors
1. Degree of willfulness/negligence
Because the source knew it needed a PSD permit and
commenced construction without applying for a PSD
permit, the gravity component is increased 10%
10% of $61 ,000 — $6,100
2. Degree of cooperation
No adjustment
3. History of noncompliance
No past history of noncompliance
4. Ability to pay
No adjustment here because the source did not provide
EPA with financial information indicating inability
to pay.

-------
-9-
Total Penalty
$67,400 preliminary deterrence amount
+ 6,100 adjustment
$73,5pp initial minimum penalty figure
The source paid the U.S. Treasury $73,500.
Section 173 and Offset Policy Sources
I. Facts
On December 1, 1984, a plywood manufacturing company
began operation of a modification at its plant which is
located in a nonattainn ent area for particulate matter. The
modification is subject to new source review permitting and,
in fact, the source has obtained a valid NSR permit from the
State. The permit specifies 1) that the applicant has demon-
strated that all other major stationary sources owned or
operated by the applicant in the State are in compliance with
the Act, 2) what constitutes required LAER, and 3) what
offsets (internal) 5 ! would be required to be obtained prior to
start-up or commenEenje of.operatjon. (These requirements
are found in Section 173 of the Clean Air Act.)
In March of 1985, the Regional Office learned that the
source did not install controls on a certain piece of process
equipment and therefore did not have LAER as specified in
the State permit. On April 1, 1985, the Region issued an NOV
for failure to comply with the terms of the permit by not
installing LAER prior to 8tart-up. At an April 15, 1985,
conference between EPA and the source, the source agreed to
meet the terms of its permit and to demonstrate compliance.
On November 15, 1985, the equi xnent had been installed and a
performance demonstration showed that the source was in
compliance with the LAER limit specified in the permit.
5/ In light of the Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A.
v. NRDC , ___ U.S. , 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1 4) , a state may
choose to adopt a plant [ de definition of source in nonattain-
rnent areas. In such instances, sources obtaining internal
offsets may be exempt from nonattainment new source review
requirements.

-------
-10-
it. Computation of penalty
A. Benefit Component
The BEN model determined that the economic benefit from
operating without LAER controls from December 1, 1984
until November 15, 1985 was $63,400.
B. Gravity Component
First the cost of the pollution control equipment must
be determined. In this case, LAER costs $110,000.
Since the plant operated from December 1, 1984 until
November 15, 1985 without LAER, the period of violation
Is 12 months. The matrix yields a gravity component of
12 x 4,000 $48,000. The other two categories of the
NSR matrix need not be used because there were no viola-
tions in these categories.
The gravity component is added to the economic benefit
component
$63,000 economic benefit
+ 48,..000 gravity
$111 ,400 preliminary, deterrence amount
C. Adjustment factors
1 . Degree of willfulness
No adjustment here. At the NOV conference, EPA
learned that the company had had serious, but temporary
economic reverses that prevented it from installing the
control equipment.
2. Degree of cooperation
No adjustments here.
3. History of compliance
No past history of noncompliance.
4. Ability to pay
No adjustment here because the company had reversed
Its financial losses and was currently financially
healthy.

-------
—11—
Total penalty - initial penalty target figure same as
preliminary deterrence amount.
Because the State had intervened in the case and had
gathered the evidence of violation, the U.S. split the
penalty with the State.
The Company paid $55,700 to the U.S. treasury and $55,700
to the State.

-------
APPENDLX LI
Vinyl Chloride Civil Penalty Policy
The attached chart shall be used to determine the gravity
component of the civil penalty settlement amount for cases
enforcing the National nisslon Standard for Vinyl Chloride. It
is to be used in lieu of the scheme for determining the gravity
component set forth in the general Clean Air Act Stationary
Source Civil Penalty Policy.
The settlement penalty for vinyl chloride cases, as for
other Clean Air Act cases, consists of a gravity component and an
economic benefit component. Adjustments for degree of willfulness
or negligence, degree of cooperation/noncooperation history of
noncompliance, ability to pay, “other unique factors,” and
litigation practicaLities should be made, if appropriate, in
accordance with the Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy.
The gravity component of the penalty reflects the seriousness
of the violation. A separate scheme was developed for vinyl
chloride cases because several of the factors in the general
policy, such as length of time of violation, whether the area is
primary non-attainment, and level of violation as a percentage
above the standard largely do not apply to vinyl chloride cases.
Also, the hazardous nature of the pollutant and the difficulty in
determining economic benefit are reflected by establishing a
substantial gravity component.
The vinyl chloride gravity component is therefore tied to
the amount of vinyl chloride released in a given incident, which
is used as a measure of the seriousness of each violation. Also,
for relief valve discharges, manual vent valve discharges, and 10
ppm violations, an adjustment factor is to be used to account for
excessive frequency of discharges in a given time, which is a
reflection of poor performance regardless of the amount of vinyl
chloride discharged to the atmosphere. The frequency adjustment
factor differs from the adjustment factor for history of
noncompliance, which reflects violations occurring prior to those
which are the subject of the current enforcement action.
The cksrc is to be applied as follows: For each violation,
assign a dollar amount based on the type and magnitude of viola-
tion as described in the chart. Relief valve discharges, manual
vent valve discharges and violation8 of 10 ppm standards should
then be grouped by calendar years. If the n ber of these vio-
lations is three or more in any calendar year, the total penalty
for that period should be multiplied by the appropriate “frequency
adjustment factor.” The total gravity component for the case is

-------
-2—
the stnn of the penalty rnnnbers for each violation, adjusted where
appropriate to account for excessive frequency. The settlement
penalty forth. case as a whole cannot exceed the statutory
maximum of $25,000 per day per violation. Sample calculations
are attached to this policy.
The economic benefit component may be Impractical to determine
in vinyl chloride cases, depending on the nature of the violations.
The benefit component should be determined if feasible, e.g. ,
where a pattern of violations indicates a need for specific
technology, equipment, or procedures, or where the defendant has
chosen a “fix” to address a series of violations.
This revised policy shall apply to all pending and future
vinyl chloride cases.

-------
Relief Valve Discharges, Manual Vent Valve Discharges, Violations
of 10 ppm Standards
Emissions -
Pounds of VC released Penalty
0 - 100 $ 1000
>100 - 2000 2000
>2000 - 5000 5000
>5000 - 7500 10,000
>7500 - 10,000 15,000
over 10,000 25,000
Frequency Adjustment Factors
• Of Violations in Calendar Year Multiplier
3 1.5
4+ 2
Failure to Report
Size of Release Not Reported (lbs.) Penalty
0-100 $ 2000
100-500 5000
500-1000 10,000
1000-2000 20,000
over 2000 25,000
Graduated scale for late reporting (if not in response to direct
request from State or EPA) - 10-day discharge reports
(as percentage of penalty for failure to report)
Within 2 months (from discharge) 25Z of penalty
2-4 months 50 “
4-6 months 75 “
over 6 months 1Oo “

-------
Stripping Violations and Reactor Opening Loss Violations
Stripping
400-500 TD
5 00-600
600-700
7 00-800
800-900
900-1200
1200-1400
1400-1600
over 1600
2000-2500 ppm
2 500-3000
3000- 3500
3500-4000
4000-4500
4500-6000
6000- 7000
7000- 8000
over 8000
Penalty
$ 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Reactor Opening Loss
Penalty = $ 100 0/violation (for each reactor)
Failure to Measure
Penalty Maximum penalty amount for each type of violation
$25000 (stripping)
$1000 (reactor opening loss)
Failure to Submit Complete Semiannual Report
Penalty $25000
Graduated scale for Late semiannual report (if not in
response to direct request from State to EPA)
Magnitude of Violation
Suspension/Latex Dispersion
Within 2 months
2-4 months
4’6 ontha
O*sr 6 months
$ 6,250
12,500
18,750
25 1000

-------
Example 1
Failure to Report
Failed to report July 6, 1981 discharge
Report August 15, 1981 discharge 1
month late - 25 x $20,000
Subtotal for reporting
Reactor Opening Loss Violation8
77 reactor opening loss violations
Stripping Violations (Suspension )
January,17, 1982 556 ppm
July 10, 1982 421 ppm
August 19, 1982 494 ppm
Subtotal for stripping
Total Gravity Component
x 1.5 $7,500
$12,000
$19,500
ABC Chemical Corporation owns a polyvinyl chloride plant
in Louisiana. The United States has filed an enforcement
action alleging-relief valve discharge violations, failure to
report relief valve discharges, reactor opening violations,
and stripping violations. The settlement penalty is determined
as follows:
Gravity Component
Relief Valve Discharges Penalty/Discharge
July 6, 1981 446 lbs. $2,000
August 15, 1981 1250 lbs. $ 2,000
November 30, 1981 46 lbs. $1 ,000 —
March 17, 1982 127 lbs. $2,000 x 1 —
July 15, 1982 6271 lbs. $10,000 —
Subtotal for Relief Valve Discharges
$5,000
5,000
$10,000
$77 ,000
$2 ,000
$1 ,000
$1 ,000
$4,000
$110,500

-------
Benefit Component
None determined -
Preliminary deterrence amount $110,500
Adjustments
Negligence
Add 3O of gravity component - emission
violations generally due to
repetition of same cause
+ 3O (110,500) + $ 33,150
Minimum penalty settlement amount $143 .650

-------
November 30, 1984
January 14, 1985
July 19, 1985
December 21 , 1985
Subtotal for
Failure to Report
Failed to report Nov. 1, 1984 discharge
Failed to report Nov. 30, 1984 discharge
Subtotal for reporting
Polynesian Polymers, Inc.,
in Texas. The United States has
alleging reUef.valve and manual
reporting violations, and reactor
settlement penalty is determined
owns a polyvinyl chloride plant
filed an enforcement action
vent valve discharge violations,
opening loss violations. The
as follows:
Gravity Component
Relief Valve and Manual Vent
Valve
July 6, 1983 271 lbs.
Discharg
Penalty/Discharge
$ 2,000
July 15, 1983 621 Lbs.
2,000
August 21, 1983 710 lbs.
2,000
November 1 , 1983 6,221 lbs.
io,ooo
January 17, 1984 7,721 lbs.
526 lbs. 2,000
2,771 lbs. 5,000
4 lbs. 1,ooo
172 lbs. 2,000
Relief Valve Discharges
x 2 — 32,000
x 1 — 17,000
x 1.5 — 12,000
$ 61,000
$25,000
10,000
$ 35,000

-------
APPENDtX It!
Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Civil Penalty Policy
The Clean Air Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy
provides guidance for determining the amount of civil penalties
CPA will seek in pro—trial settlement of enforcement actions
under Title I of the Act. Due to certain unique aspects of
asbestos demolition and renovation cases, separate c uidance
is provided here for determining the gravity and economic
benefit components of the penalty. Adjustment factors should
be treated in accordance with the general stationary source
penalty policy.
If the Region is referring a civil action under Section
113(b) against a demolition or renovation source, it should
r.co ind a civil penalty settlement a unt. Consistent with
the g.nsral penalty policy, the Region should determine a
prsliainary deterrence amount by assessing an economic
benefitcomponent and a gravity component. This amount may
then be adjusted upward or downward by consideration of other
factors, such as degree of willfulness and/or negligence,
history of noncompliance, ability to pay, and litigation
practicalities. Since there is a wide variation.in the size
of demolition contractors, ability to pay may be an important
adjustment factor in some instances.
The gravity component should account for factors such
as the environmental harm resulting from the violation, the
importance of the requirement to the regulatory scheme, and
the size of the violator. Since asbestos is a hazardous air
pollutant, the gravity factor associated with substantive
violations (i.e., failure to adhere to work practices or to
prevent visible emissions from waste disposal) should be
high. Also, since notification is essential to Agency
enforcement, a notification violation should also warrant a
high gravity component.
Gravity Component
The attached chart seté forth the gravity component of
the penalty settlement figure for notification violations and
for violations of substantive requirements for control of
asbestosemissions. The figures in the first line of the
chart apply as a general rule to failure to notify, including
those situations in which substantive violations occurred and
those instances in which EPA has been unable to determine if
substantive violations occurred. The reduced amounts in the
second line of the chart apply only if the Agency can conclude,
from its own inspection, a State inspection, or other reliable
information, that the source complied with substantive
requirements.

-------
—2—
Where notification is made late, the Region has discret
to seek a lesser penalty. The penalty should reflect the
degree to which the Region’s ability to evaluate substantive
compliance has been hampered. If notification Is late but
still allows sufficient opportunity to monitor the entire
project, little or no penalty La warranted. If notification
is given so late as to preclude any evaluation of substantive
compliance, the Region should determine a penalty as If no
notice were given.
Regions should exercis, discretion in penalizing a timely
notification which is incomplete, A notification can be so
insufficient as to be tantamount to no notice, in which case
the Region should determine the penalty as if there were no
notice. Again, the important factor is the impact the company’s
action has on our ability to monitor substantive compliance.
Penalties for substantive violations an, based on the
particular regulatory requirements violated. The figure is
the sum of the penalty assigned to a violation of each set of
requirements: removal, wetting, and stripping, 40 C.F.R.
S61.l47, collection, packaging, and transporting of asbestos—
containing waste material, 561.152(b) and disposal of wastes
at an acceptable site, S61.152(a). The figure also depends
on the amount of asbestos involved in the operation, which
relates to the potential for environmental harm associated
with improper removal and disposal. There are three categoni
based on the amount of asbestos, expressed in units,” a unit
being the threshold for applicability of the substantive
requirements. If a job Involves friable asbestos on pipes
and other facility components, the amounts of linear feet and
square feet should each be separately converted to units, and
the numbers of units should be added together to arrive at a
total. Where the only information on the amount of asbestos
involved in a particular demolition or renovation is in cubic
dimensions (volume), the amount can be converted to square
dimensions by dividing the volume by the estimated thickness
of the asbestos material.
Gravity components are adjusted based on whether the
violation is a first, second, or subsequent offense. By
0 second” gr Nsubsequente offense, we mean that the company
has violated the regulations after previously being notified
by the State or EPA of asbestos NESHAP violations. This
prior notification could range from simply a warning letter to
the filing of a judicial enforcement action. A “second”
violation could even occur at the same job as the first one
if, after being notified of violations by the State or PA

-------
—3—
and having an opportunity to correct such violations, the
company Continues to violate the regulatjon . If the case
involves multiple potential defendants and any one of them is
involved in a second or aubsequen offense, the Penalty
should be derived based on the second or subsequent offense.
In such instance, the Government Should try to get the prior-
offending party to pay th. extra penalties attributable to
this factor. (S.. diicugsjo blow on apportionment of the
penalty.)
The Region should consider enhancing the gravity component
in situations wher, the duration of the violation Increases
the potential harm. This would be particularly appropriate
where the source allow, asbestos vase, material to stay on
site Without any effort to collect and dispose it for a
significa period of tim..
Benefit Component
This component is a measure of the economic benefit -
accruing to th. contractor, the facility owner, or both, as a
result of noncompliance with the asbestos regulations,
Information on actual economic bWnef it should be used if
ava 1ab1e, The attached chart právjdes if igurea Which may be
used as a rule of thumb to determin, the costs of removing
and disposing asbesto, in compliance with S61.]47 and S61.152,
where actual info tjon is difficult to obtain or is suspect.
The figures are based on rough cost estimates which the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has developed in
considering revisions to the asbestos standard. These estimates
are within a range of numbers that OAQPS has Considered in
determining the economic impact of the asbestos demolition
and renovation requirem,n s. Also, if any party ultimately
pays to have all or part of the job done In compliance,
actual expenditures can be used to offset the benefit of
noncompliance.
pportjonment of the Penalty
This policy is intended to yield a minimum settlement
penalty figure for the case as a whole. In some cases, more
than one contractor and/or the facility owner will be named
as defendants. In such instances, the Government should
genera1ly take the position of seeking a sum for the case as a
whole, which the multiple defendants can allocate amonQ
themselves as they wish.
It is not necessary in applying this penalty rolicy to
allocate the economic benefit between the parties rrecisely.
The total benefit accruing to the parties Should he used for
this component, Depending on the circumstances, the economic

-------
—4—
benefit may actually split among the parties in any combir ic
For example, if the contractor charges for compliance with
asbestos removal requirements and fails to comply, the contrac
has derived a savings and the owner has not. If the contracto
underbid. because it does not factor in compliance with
asbestos requirements, the facility owner has realized the
full, amount of the financial savings. (In such an instance,
the contractor may have also received a benefit which is
harder to quantify — obtaining the contract by virtue of the
low bid.)
There are circumstances in which the Government may
try to apportionment of the penalty. For example,
if one party is a second of fender, the Government may try
to assure that such party pay the portion of the p.nalty
attributabl, to the second offense If one party is known to
hav, realized all or most of the economic benefit, that party
may b asked to pay for that amount. Other circumstances
may arise in which on, party appears more culpable than
others. We realize, however, that it may be impra ctj c a to
dictate allocation of the penalties in negotiating a settlemen
with multiple defendants. The Government should therefore
adopt a single bottom line sum•for the case and should not
reject a settlement which meets the bottom line because of,
the way the amount is apportioned.
Apportionment of the penalty in a multi—defendant case
may be required if one party is willing to settle and others
are not. In such circumstances, the Government should take
the position that if certain portions of the penalty are
attributable to such party (such as economic benefit or second
of fense), that party should pay those amounts and a reasonable
portion of the amounts not directly assigned to any single
party. However, the Government should also be flexible
enough to mitigate the penalty somewhat to account for the
party’s relative cooperativeness, If a case is settled as to
one defendant, a penalty not less than the balance of the
settlement figure for the cas3 as a whole should be sought
from the remaining defendants. This remainder can be adjusted
upward, in accordance with the general Civil Penalty Policy,
if the circumstances warrant it. Of course, the case can
also be .l.itigated against the remaining defendants for the
maximum attainable penalty.
Other Considerations
We expect that each Region may want to develop its own
strategy (some have already done so) for targeting enforcern.
action against violators of the asbestos demolition and
renovation requirements. The policy is intended to give

-------
—5—
Region. flexibility to incorporate, as part of a coherent
strategy, • practice of addressing first—time notice violation
wher, there is at least probable compliance with substantive
r.quirem.nts through findings of violation or administrative
orders. Ther. is also the potential for pre—settling’
judicial actions for modest penalties for such violations.
On th. other hand, the policy penalizes substantve
violations and repeat violations in a significant way.
Penalties should generally be sought for all violations which
fit the.. categories. If a company knowingly violates the
regulations, particularly if the violations are severe or the
cospany ha. a prior history of violations, the Region should
consider initiating a criminal enforcement action.
!Ollowing are two examples of application of this policy.
Example I .
XY2 Associates hires America’s Rest Demolition Contractor
to demolish a building ontaInirrg 1300 lineac feet f pipe
cDvered with friable asbestos, and 16,000 square feet of
siding and roof ihg sprayed with asbestos. Neither company
notifies EPA or State officials prior to co .ncirtg demolition
of the building. Tipped off by a citizen complaint, EPA
inspects the site and finds that the contractor has not been
wetting the asbestos removed from the building, in violation
of 40 C.F.R. $61.147. In addition, the contractor has left a
pile of dry asbestos waste material on site, and the inspector
observes visible emissions in violation of 561.152(b). The
contractor has also not deposited the waste in an acceptable
disposal site, in violation of S61.152(a). At the time of
the inspection 75% of the asbestos has already been removed
from the building and handled improperly. After discussion
with EPA officials, XYZ Associates hires another contractor
to properly dispose of the asbestos wastes and to remove the
remaining 25% of the asbestos in compliance with the asbestos
NES HAP.
Ne.ither XIZ Associates nor America’s Best Demolition
Contractors has ever been cited for asbestos violations by
EPA or the State. Both parties have sufficient resources to
pay a substantial penalty.

-------
—6—
The penalty is computed a. follows:
Gravity Component
Mo notic. (first time) $10,000
Violations of p61.147, 6l.l52(b), and
S61.152(a) (100 + 5 • 105 units of
asbestos o4 5,ooo
$55,000
conosic B.n.f it
$4/sq. foot * 16,000 sq. f.st + 54/
lin.ar toot x 1300 linsar f..t $69,200
Of f ..t by actual expenditure by 211
to remove 23% of asbestos in c li —
anc. with M SHAP (23% x $6 ,2o0)
Preliminary deterrence amount $106,900
Adjustment factors — Prompt correction
of •nvirona5ntal problem (—30% of
gravity component) 5—16,500
Minimum penalty settlement amount $ 90,400
Example 2
Consolidated Conglomerates. Inc., hires Bert and Ernie’s
Trucking Company to demolish a building which contaIns 10,000
linear fe.t of friable asbestos on pip... Neither party
gives notice to EP? or to the State prior to commencement of
demolition. An EPA inspector, acting on a tip, visits the
site after th. building has been totally demolished. He
finds a large pile of dry gbestos—contaifliflg waste material
on site. The inspector learns that the demolition had been
completed at least three w ek* before he inspected the site.
Consolidated Conglomerates is a corporation with assets
of over $100 million arid annual sales ,in excess of $10 million.
Bert and”Ernie’s Trucking is a limited partnership of two
brothers who own two trucks and have less than $250,000 worth
of business each year. This contract was for $50,000. Bert
and Ernie’s was once previouslY cited by the State Department
of Environmental Quality for violations of asbestos reQu atiOnS.
—

-------
—7—
Th. penalty is computsd a. follows:
Gravity Component
No notIce (2nd violation) $25,000
Violations of S6I.152(b) and $40,000
S l.1S2(a) (2nd violation); no direct
evidenc. of violation of S41.147
(app. 31.5 units)
A qravation of hasard due to duration $10,000
of dispomal violation — + 25% of
substantive violations (25% z $40,000) _______
$75,000
$.n.f it C ponent
$4/ in.ar foot z 10,000 linear feet $40,000
Preliminary deterr.ncs amount. ________
$115,000
No adjustment factors
Minimum settl.m.nt penalty amount $115,000
Apportionment of the Penalty
The penalty in this case has been increased by $35,000
becauss it involves a second violation by the contractor.
Ordinarily, the Government should try to get Bert and Ernie’s
to pay at least that amount of the penalty. However,
Consolidated Conglomerate’s financial size compared to the
contractor’s will probably dictate that Consolidated pay most
of the penalty.

-------
Mt .t liti f i.tion Penalty Policy
Gravity CL t
NOtificatj y lit Vi0latj( 2nd Violation Su eo jent
, $10—12,000 $20—25,00 0 $25,000
notice t*jt pc 1. $05,000 $lO— 15, 00 0 $25,000
eubetintj i] jii
Late notice — d1a tjon — if t * int to no notice, ia above tabi.
Ir. 1.t. i ice — — if t * jn to no i ica, us. abo table
9±statj Vjo]ati
Ibtal uut
invo1 ed in tk qj t.tian Iat ViolatIon d Vio1ati
10 imlts $5,000 $15,000 $25,000
> 10 mit. at <50 tmits $10,000 $20,000 $30,000
> 50 x4ts $15,000 $25,000 $35,000
— 260 1ii .r fist “160 equsre feet — if both are in’ lved, ivert
int to Lmits N aód t thsr
1y t.rix . mrata1y to violation of 561.147, S61.152(b), and 5 6 1.152(a;
- add t ether
Dihance if duration of offer aggravates hazard - e.g., failure to dispose
of asbsst — taintng wastes,
Benefit O,cr p.nt
For asbestos on pipes:
$3 per lir .r foot of asbestos for wetting of friable asbestos and
pe aging of wastes — 561.147, 561.152(b)
$1 per lir ar foot of asbestos for transpotting and disposal of wastes
— 561.152(b), 561.152(a)
per Ii rear foot for both
For asbestos on other facility calçonents:
$3.50 per square foot for wetting of friable asbestos and packaging of wast
$ .50 per square foot for transporting and disposal of wastes
$4.00 per square foot for both

-------
APPENDIX IV
CLEAN AIR ACT PENALTY POLICY AS APPLIED TO
STATIONARY SOURCES OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
WHERE REFORMULATION TO LOW SOLVENT TECHNOLOGY
IS THE APPLICABLE METHOD OF COMPLIANCE
Introduction
This addendtnn provides guidance for calculating the civil
penalties EPA will require in pre-trial settlement of district
court enforcement actions, pur8uant to Title I of the Clean Air
Act (CA.A), against sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC’s)
in violation of State Implementation Plan emission limitations,
where low solvent technology (LST) is an acceptable control
strategy for achieving compliance, If compliance using LST is
the .control strategy chosen by the source and If it can be im-
pl tnented expeditiously 1 the penalty analysis methodology set•
forth in this appendix must be used. If compliance using LST
is not the compliance strategy chosen by the source, or if LST
cannot be accomplished expeditiously or is not available, the
penalty must be calculated according to the general Clean Air
Act Stationary Source Civil Penalty Policy , (hereinafter CAA
Penalty Policy), based on the costs of add-on controls.
A separate policy for arriving at a penalty figure in VOC
cases where LST is an acceptable control strategy is necessary
because penalties calculated pursuant to the general CAA Penalty
- Policy in such instances are insufficient to deter violations.r [
The general CAA Penalty Policy focuses upon recapturing
1, Penalties must be high enough to have the desired specific
and general deterrent effects. They must also be, to the
extent possible, objective in order to ensure fairness. The
general CAA Penalty Policy , relying on the cost of pollution
control equipment, does not provide such penalties in the case
of VOC sources using LST. Indeed VOC penalties have been much
smaller than the penalties collected in other CAA cases. A
sample of VOC sources, with total sales in the $10,000,000
range, have had civil penalties ranging from $2,000 to $45,000.
By comparison, a company cited for TSP violations, with sales
in 1983 of $4,656,000, will be asked to pay a mjnim of $75,000
in penalties.

-------
the economic savings of non-compliance based upon the typically
substantial capital expenditures and operation and maintenance
costs of the necessary pollution control equipment. The capita].
costs of implementing LST are by comparison relatively small, and
in many cases LST actually results in a net economic savings. 2 !
This guidance, therefore, sets forth an objective methodology
for arriving at a substantial cash penalty figure in cases not
requiring the expenses associated with add-on technology. Specif-
ically, in all VOC cases including those where a source may
choose to come into compliance using LST as a control option,
Regions must base their pre-negotiacion penalty calculations for
the Economic Benefit Component on the cost of add-on controls.
Once negotiations begin, the Region may recalculate the penalty
figure using the alternative methodology in this Appendix where
applicable based on information to be supplied by the source.
The Economic Benefit Component will be re-calculated based on the
cost of LST as a control option. An additional penalty component
(hereinafter referred to as the Production Component) must there-
after be calculated by multiplying the dollar amount of sales
on the non-complying lines as reported by the source, by the
average return on sales fo .the.industry to be. supplied by
NEIC. T e average return on sales is the norm for the irtdustrj
for net profits after taxes divided by total sales. Industry-
specific average return on sales multipliers are available from
the Information Services Office at NEIC in Denver, FTS 776-5124
(contact Charlene Swibas). NEIC will require the following
information from the Region to calculate the average return on
sales multiplier for an individual source: (1) type of VOC
source, (2) total assets or n ber of employees, and (3) dollar
amount of sales produced on the non-complying lines by year. In
this regard, EPA should advise sources that it is to their benefit
2, Although substantial capital expenditures are required for VOC
sources using add-on technology to come into compliance, sour-
ces having the option of using low solvent or water-based techno-
logy derive economic savings by coming into compliance.
For example, reformulation to LST generally involves only minor
mechanical and process modifications costing less than $10,000.
( See note 4 infra.) These small outlays are recaptured by subse-
qüiiit cost savings. For example, water-based coatings are usually
less expensive. Similarly, high solid emulsion-LSTs, although
perhaps more expensive on a voltnne basis, are more efficient
when properly applied, requiring fewer coatings. Reduced VOC
emissions result in further indirect savings in the form of
lower employee health problems and absenteism, reduction in the
cost and amount of OSHA-required ventilation, and lower fire insu-
rance rates. Finally, the vast majority of VOC sources having
LST as a readily available option..-for compliance make only small
investments in R&D, expenditures which are, moreover, fully tax
deductible.
—2-

-------
to supply EPA with detailed information such as a plant specific
breakdown of assets rather than Company-wide reports, and line-
by-line sales figures. This will help ensure that the penalty
is limited to sales from production on their non-complying
lines as opposed to their total sales. When verifiable line-by-
line production information is not available, the Regions must
base their estimates on sources total sales as reported in
company books and annual reports. In addition, the Production
Component figure may be adjusted to reflect the source’s actual
return on sales where this figure can be established from reliable
information.
The total of the Production and Economic Benefit Components
should be compared to the penalty that would have been imposed were
the source coming into compliance using add-on controls. In no
event should the total of the Economic Benefit and Production
Components exceed the penalty amount based solely on the cost of
add-on controls.
This policy may be used in all situations involving LST as an
acceptable compliance option, including those where the source is
granted an expeditious schedule to continue development of LST,
but may ultimately have to comply using add-on controls. In
those situations where the ourde wilL comply through a ombtnatLon
of LST and add-on controls, the penalty may be adjusted in accordance
with this Appendix only to the extent the two compliance options
and the source’s financial data are segregable on a line-by-line
basis.
No other adjustments to the Economic Benefit and Production
Components may be made ocher than as Contemplated in the general
CAA Penalty Policy . These adjustments are described in
Section tI.A.3. of the general policy. In addition, in all cases
the Gravity Component should be estimated in accordance with the
general CAA Penalty Policy . This policy is based upon the principles
escablished by the CAA Penalty Policy and general Agency policies.
The Production Component formula produces penalties which
automatically account for the size of the source and correlate
with the emissions voh ne from non-complying lines. Moreover,
attaching a source’s after tax net profits on noncomplying produc-
tion helps to ensure a meaningful penalty without impinging on
employee salaries, necessary operating costs, or tax deductions
for good faith pollution control expenditures such as R & D on
LST.

-------
Removing the proficabi].ity of non-complying production is
particularly appropriate In cases where LST is an acceptable con-
trol strategy due to the ease with which many such sources could
have come into compliance, as well as the competitive advantage
some VOC sources obtain from non-compliance. For example, many
paper coating concerns have continued to use high solvent coatings
due to the versatility such solutions afford In meeting customer
preferences such a& color brightness. Such VOC sources are,
thus, probably able to capture a larger share of the market due
to their noncompliance. Similarly, metal furniture coaters have
had high solid ernulsion-LSTg available for many years. Many
sources have, however, delayed the minimal costs and process
changes necessary to come into compliance, perhaps enabling these
businesses, in the short run, to offer their products at a slightly
reduced price. 3 /
What follows is the specific methodology to be applied in
calculating civil penalty settlement amounts in actions against
sources of VOC where LST is an acceptable control strategy.
3/ Use of high solid emulsion-LST requires installation of a
$5-7,000 emulsion heater, retraining of employesa to apply
the thicker emursion, and installation of a larger or more effi-
cient metal washing system to prevent pitting. As is noted
above, however, these costs are in the long run recaptured by
the economic savings associated with high solid emulsion-LST.
( See note 2 supra.)
-4-
— 4

-------
Alternative Methodology for Calculating VOC Penalties Where LST
is the Applicable Method of Compliance
ECONOMIC BENEFIT COMPONENT*
+
PRODUCTION COMPONENT
total sales from production on non-complying lines
x industry norm return on sales _______
Compare this figure to the- penalty based on the
cost of add-on controls as the control. option. Use the
lower of the two figures.
+
Settlement Adjustments to Production Component**
substitute the source’s actual return on sales
for the average industry return on sales
+
GRAVITY COMPONEWt*
+
Settlement Adjustments to Gravity Component*
ADJUSTED MINIMUM PENALTY FIGURE
* See, Clean Air Act Civil Penalty Policy for the procedures- to
T Tlow in making these calculations. Note , however, that
the CA.A Penalty Policy permits Regions in their discretion not
to seek to recover the Benefit Component when it is likely to be
less than $5,000. This Appendix contemplates including the
Economic Benefit Component along with the Production Component
even where the Economic Benefit is estimated to be less than
$5,000. If the ‘combination of both the Economic Benefit and
Production Components is estimated to be less than $5,000, it is
not necessary for the case development team to include either
one in the minimum settlement penalty amount.
** Note that the considerations described in Section tt.A.3 of
the general policy may also be applied in adjusting the Production
Component, as well as the Economic Benefit Component.
—5—

-------
APPENDIX V
Air Civil Penalty Worksheet
A. Benefit Component:
(enter from computer calculation)
B. Gravity Component:
1. Actual or possible harm
a. Amount above standard:
b. Toxicity of pollutant:
c. Sensitivity of environment
d. Length of time of violation
2. Importance to regulatory scheme:
3. Size of violator:
Total gravity Component:
Preliminary deterrence amount:
(st.nn of benefit and gravity components)
C. Flexibility-Adjus ent Factors:
1 . Degree of willfulness or negligence:
total gravity component x any
augmentation percentage
2. Degree of cooperation:
total gravity component x any mitigation
percentage
3. History of noncompliance:
total gravity component x any
augmentation percentage
4. Ability to pay:
any mitigation amount

-------
ATThcHrt1EI ?r II
tO S qp

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
August 7, 1978
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Procedures for Proposal and Promulgation of
Delayed Compliance Orders
From: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
To: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I—X
The July 27, 1978, memorandum from the Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement entitled Enforcement Under
the Clean Air Act Amendments —— Orders Under Sections 113(a)
and 113(d), summarizes EPA policy on the use of administra-
tive orders as enforcement actions. Appendix A to that
memorandum sets forth criteria for federal issuance of, and
federal action on State, delayed compliance orders (DCOs)
under Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act. Currently, all
Federal Register packages regarding DCOs are reviewed
within the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE)
before transmittal to the Agency’s Federal Register Officer
for publication. Effective August 8, 1978, direct transmit-
tal of Federal Register documents regarding typical Section
113(d)(l) DCOs to the Federal Register Officer (PM—212) is
to be implemented in the same manner as “normal” SIP revision
documents. DSSE will no longer review these documents
before publication; rather, any DSSE comments will be
transmitted to the Regional Office during the 30—day comment
p riod provided in the informal proposed rulemaking procedure.
A new 40 CFR Part 65, establishing procedural regula-
tions for, and a format for codification of, DCO actions, is
currently undergoing “red border” review by the Assistant
Administrators and is expected to be promulgated the week of
August 21. Attached for your use are sample Federal Register
preambles and arnendatory language for final rulemaking
actions on DCOs for which necessary proposal action has been
completed. These samples address final rulemaking DCO
actions which occur both before an ter promulgation of
Part 65. By memoranda of March 10 and May 9, 1978,

-------
—2—
approved order nay not be sued under the federal.
enforcement or citizen suit provisions of the Act for
violations of the SIP regulations covered by the Order.
The purpose of this notice is to invite public comment
on [ EPA’S proposed approval of; EPA’s proposed disapproval
of; whether EPA should approve ] the order as a delayed
compliance order.
DATE: Written comments must be received on or before
[ 30 days after Federal Register notice is published ]
ADDRESSEES: Comments should be submitted to Director,
Enforcement Division, EPA, Region [ 1, ( address
of Regional Office] . The State order, supporting
material, and public comments received in response
to this notice may be inspected and copied (for
appropriate charges) at this address during normal
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [ Include name, address,
and telephone number of the contact person. Generally,
this should be the person in the Regional Office
with the greatest knowledge of the orderl
SUPPLEMENTARy INFORMATION: ( Name of source ] operates
a [ type of planti at [ city, State ] . The order under
consideration addresses emissions from [ applicable
emission points ] at the facility, which are subject
to [ complete citation to the regulation dovered by

-------
—3—
the order ] . The regulation limits the emissions
of [ type of criteria pollutant ] , and is part of the
federally approved [ name of State ] State Implementation
Plan. The order requires final compliance with the
regulation by [ date ] through [ brief suimary of the
Ur mYy control strategy and/or increments; interim requirements
inc
may also be summarized ] . [ If applicable, indicate that
the source has consented to the terms of the order

and/or that the source has satisfied particular incre-
ments contained in the order).
[ A separate paragraph summarizing prior federal or State
enforcement actions( be included.J
Because this order ha been issued to a major source of
[ pollutant ) emissions and permits a delay in compliance
with the applicable regulation, it must be approved by EPA
before it becomes effective as a delayed compliance order
under Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). EPA
may approve the order only if it satisfies the appropriate
requirements of this subsection. [ The region may briefly
indicate whether the elements of the appropriate paragraphs
of subsection 113(d) are met. However, to save time, this
summary may be omitted and a state order rni y be routinely
noticed without prior Regional Office evaluation.]
If the order is approved by EPA, source compliance with its
terms would precludu feder il enforcement, action undc-r

-------
—
Section 113 of the Act aga3 nst the source for violations ot
the regulation covered by the order during the period the
order is in effect. Enforcement against the source under
the citizen suit provision of the Act (Section 304) would be
similarly precluded. If approved, the order would also
constitute an addition to the [ name of State ) SIP. [ If the
order, in accordance with Section 113(d)(l)(D), sets a final
compliance date after July 1, 1979, the following sentence
should be included: However, in the event final compliance
is not achieved by July 1, 1979, source compliance with the
order will not preclude assessment of any noncompliance
penalties under Section 120 of the Act, unless the source is
otherwise entitled to an exemption under Section 120(a) (2) (B)
or (Cfl.
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments
on the proposed order. Written comments received by the
date specified above will be considered in determining
whether EPA may approve the order. After the public comment
period, the Administrator of EPA will publish in the Federal
Register the Agency’s final action on the order in 40 CFR
Part 65.
[ If th notice will be publshed before 40 CFR art 65 is
promulga’ the following pa\ graph must be inc’ V\ded: The
provisions o \ 0 CFR Part 65 wi’ be promulgated by EPA

-------
-5-
and will contain t e procedure for EP\s issuancc ,
aPPr’ V\a1l and disapproval f orders under Sec\ ion 113(d) of
the AC \ In addition, Part\ 5 will contain sec\, ons summa-
rizing or\ers issued, approve’ and disapproved b\EPA. A
prior notic\ proposing regu1ati s for Part 65, pub’ shed at
40 FR 14876 ( kri] 2, 1975), wi1l\ e withdrawn, and r 1aced
by a notice pro % gating these new >‘c julations.] \\
1 Lutk8r L 1 . .$ —U !.e. 7413— ThO1-.
Date [ name of Regional Administrator]
[ Regional Administrator )
Region [ )
1’JOJC CO vI41 O.( .t 1e Dr r ‘na . pr 4d Ili ’re. r-(-
414, +I ,JSr psce4ii L +J Oj o)*
‘ t 1 1o , o co
J.

-------
ENVIRONtIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ 40 CFR Part 65] Oc
[ Docket No. 1*
STATE AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS PERMITTING A DELAY IN
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Notice of ( Proposed Approval;
Proposed Disapproval; Receipt ] of an
Administrative Order Issued
By [ name of issuing authority ]
To [ name of source ]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Proposed Rule
SUI 1MARY: EPA [ proposes to approve; proposes to disapprove;
has received ] an administrative order issued by
the [ name of issuing authority ] to [ name of source] .
The order requires the company to bring air emissions
from its [ type of process ] in [ location ] into compliance
with certain regulations contained in the federally—
approved [ name of State ] State Implementation Plan
(SIP) by [ date ] . Because the order has been issued to
a major source and permits a delay in compliance with
provisions of the SIP, it rLlust he approved by EPA
before it becomes effective as a delayed compliance
order under the Clean Air Act (the Act). If approved
by EPA, the order will Constitute an addition to the
SIP. In addition, a source in compliance with an
* optional

-------
—2—
proposed issuance of the order. [ If it is anticipated
that there will be significant public interest in
holding a hearing, the notice could set its date, time,
and place as a substitute for offering the opportunity
to request a hearing. The following sections of the
notice should be modified accordingly. This will
eliminate the need for a second notice to announce
the hearing).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before
[ thirty days after Federal Register notice is published ]
and requests for a public hearing must be received on
or before [ fifteen days after Federal Register notice
is published ] . All requests for a public hearing
should be accompanied by a statement of why the hearing
would be beneficial and a text or summary of any
proposed testimony to be offered at the hearing. If
there is significant public interest in a hearing, it
will be held after twenty—one days prior notice of the
L4
date, time, and place e- the -h -c1LiI1g ha5 been given -
t.hi pnb1i’. 1io. .
ADDRESSEES: Comments and requests for a public hearing
should he submitted to Director, Enforcement Division,
EPA, Region [ ] , [ address of the Regional Office ]
Material supporting the order and public comments

-------
—3—
received in respo. e to this notice may be inspected
and copied (for a . ‘ropriate charges) at this address
during normal business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: [ Include the name, address,
and telephone numb r of the contact person. Generally,
this si )uld be the person in the Regional Office
with the greatest knowledge of the order]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [ Name of source ] operates a
L ype of plant ) at [ city, State] . The proposed
order addresses emi.sions from [ pplicab1e emission
points ] at this fac lity, which are subject to [ complete
citation to the regulation covered by the order )
The regulation limit- the emissions of [ type of
criteria pollutant ) , and is part of the federally—
approved [ name of St te] State Implementation Plan.
The order requires f 9al compliance with the regulation
by [ date], and the scarce has consented to its terms.
[ If applicable, also indicate that the source has
agreed to meet the order’s increments during the period
of this informal rulemaking and/or that the source has
satisfied particular increments contained in the
order]
The proposed order satisfies the applicable requirements
of Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). If the

-------
order is issued, source compliance with its terms would
preclude further EPA enforcement action under Section 113 of
the Act against the source for violations of the regulation
covered by the order during the period the order is in
effect. Enforcement against the source under the citizen
suit provisions of the Act (Section 304) would be similarly
precluded. (If the order, in accordance with Section
113(d)(l)(D), sets a final compliance date after July 1,
1979, the following sentence should be included: However,
in the event final compliance is not achieved by July 1,
1979, source compliance with the order will not preclude
assessment of any noncompliance penalties under Section 120
of the Act, unless the source is otherwise entitled to an
exemption under Section 120(a) (2) (B) or (C)].
Comments received by the date specified above will be
considered in determining whether EPA should issue the
order. Testimony given at any public hearing concerning
the order will also be considered. After the public comment
period and any public hearing, the Administrator of EPA
will publish in the Federal Register the Agency’s final
action on the order in 40 CFR Part 65.
[ h he notice will be publi ed before 40 C Part 65 is
prom . ed, the following para\, aph must be i ’çluded: The
Part 65 wil1 promu1gated\ EPA

-------
—5--
on, and will contain the\ rocedure for EPA’s’\ ssuance,
app oval, and disapproval o an order under Sect on 113(d) of
the Ac\ In addition, Part 6\will contain sectio\s sumrna—
rizing o’ ers issued, approved \nd disapproved by A
prior notic\\proposing regu1ations’\, or Part 65, ub1is d at
40 FR 14876 (‘ ç il 2, 1975), will be”\ithdrawn 1 and rep1a\ d
by a notice pro Mgating these new regu\ations.]
U.6.€ . 7413, 16O1. •
Date [ name of Regional Administrato
( Regional Administrator )
Region [ ]
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed to amend
40 CFR Chapter 1, as follows:
Part 65 — DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS
I. ha c 4 orr’hj c 4o4 r 6v P 0 + f J 4 b Pe l J I)o& r 4 -t 4 4 ior: 4 y ‘!
- O dJi .g S4-5.- ’J L L UJ f ..l1eiis-c QS’!C ) I3
4 ,’ [ *•) Q ciecJ tfDIIOW n 4 L
565.1*1 Federal delayed compliance orders dO
issued under Section 113(d)(l), (3), and
(4) of the Act.
[ Order No. [ docket no. ]
(Please insert entire contents of the order)

-------
—b—
The following subsections
States:
have been assiqned to the various
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Co 1 urn b i a
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mi ch I g an
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Mon tan a
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North
Carol ma
North
*Federal
Order
S65.50
65.60
65.70
65.80
65.90
65.100
65.110
65.120
65.130
65.140
65.150
65.160
65.170
65.180
65.190
65. 200
65. 210
65 . 220
65.230
65.240
65.250
65.260
65.270
65.280
65.290
65.300
65.310
65.320
65. 330
65. 340
65.350
65.360
65.370
65. 380
Approved
State Order
§65.51
65.61
65.71
65.81
65.91
65.101
65. 111
65.121
65.131
65.14 1
65.151
65.161
65.171
65.181
65.191
65. 201
65.211
65.221
65.231
65.241
65.251
65.261
65.271
65.281
65.291
65.301
65.2 11
65.321
65.331
65.341
65.351
65.361
65.371
65.381
Di sapproved
State Order
S65.52
65.62
65.72
65.82
65.92
65.102
65.112
65. 122
65.132
65.142
65.152
65.162
65.172
65.182
65.192
65.202
65.212
65 .222
65.232
65.242
65. 252
65.262
65.272
65.282
65.292
65.302
65.212
65.322
65.332
65. 342
65 .352
65.362
65.372
65 .382
Dakota
65.390 65.391
65. 392

-------
—7—
*Federa l Approved Disapproved
State Order State Order State Order
Ohio 65.400 65.401 65.402
Ok1ahoti a 65.410 65.411 65.412
Oregon 65.420 65.421 65.422
Pennsylvania 65.430 65.431 65.432
Rhode Island 65.441 65.441 65.442
South
Carolina 65.450 65.451 65.452
South
Dakota 65.460 65.461 65.462
Tennessee 65.470 65.471 65.472
Texas 65.480 65.481 65.482
Utah 65.490 65.491 65.492
Vermont 65.500 65.501 65.502
Virginia 65.510 65.511 65.512
Washington 65.520 65.521 65.522
West Virginia 65.530 65.531 65.532
Wisconsin 65.540 65.541 65.542
Wyoming 65.550 65.551 65.552
Guam 65.560 65.561 65.562
Puerto
Rico 65.570 65.571 65.572
Virgin
Islands 65.580 65.581 65.582
Am eric an
Samoa 65.590 65.591 65.592
I

-------
£Cll,1
ENVIRON 1ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CO
[ 40 CFR Part 65] o ir4•
[ Docket No. __J
STATE AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
ORDERS PERMITTING A DELAY IN
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Proposed Delayed Compliance
Order or [ Source] , [ Location]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Proposed Rule
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to issue an administrative order
to the [ name of source] . The order requires the
company to bring air emissions from its [ type of
process ] in [ location ] into compliance with certain
regulations contained in the federally—approved [ name
of State ] State Implementation Plan (SIP). Because the
company is unable to comply with these regulations at
this time, the proposed order would establish an
expeditious schedule requiring final compliance by
[ date]. Source compliance with the Order would preclude
suits under the federal enforcement and citizen suit
provision of the Clean Air Act for violation of the SIP
regulations covered by the Order. The purpose of this
notice is to invite public comment and to offer an
opportunity to request a public hearing on EPA’s
* optional

-------
—2—
4. The subject heading of the notice has been amended.
5. The name of the Regional Administrator should be
typed under his or her signature.
Please also note that the amendatory language, which
must appear in all notices proposing issuance of federal
delayed compliance orders, should be included after the
signature of the Regional Administrator, and that the
content of the order need not be typed by the Regional
Office. If the proper instructions are noted, the order
will be incorporated into the notice by the Office of
Federal Register. Aniendatory language need not be in-
cluded in notices proposing approval or disapproval of
State orders. (The State order may be included in the
“Supplementary Information” portion of the notice.)
Please use the attachments as a guide for all future
notices of proposed rulemaking concerning the issuance,
approval, and disapproval of delayed compliance orders.
Except as modified herein, the above referenced memorandum
of March 10, 1978, remains in effect. If you should have
any questions, please contact Charles Hungerford of my staff
at FTS 755—2570.
Edward E. Reich
Attachments

-------
M A H T I
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGrON, DC 20460

tI’R’ ‘
IJCtI
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Federal Register Notices Proposing
Approval, Disapproval, or Issuance
of Administrative Orders under
Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement
TO: Enforcement Division Directors
Regions I-X
Reactions to several notices of proposed rulemaking for
delayed compliance orders have indicated the need to amend
the sample Federal Register notices included with the March 10,
1978, memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
General Enforcement entitled “Procedures for Federal Register
Publication of Proposed and Final Agency Action on Adminis-
trative Orders under Section 113(d) of the Clean Air Act”.
The attached sample notices reflect, among others, the
following changes:
1. At the request of the General Services Administra-
tion’s Office of Federal Register, the “Summary”
portion of the notice has eliminated all references
to legal citations, and has simplified the explana-
tion of the purpose of the rulemaking action and
the effect of a delayed compliance or&r.
2. At the request of EPA’s Office of General Counsel,
language has been added to the “Supplementary
Information” portion of the notice informing the
public that the provisions of 40 CFR Part 65 will
be promulgated by EPA in the near future, and that
they spill contain the procedure for EPA’s issuance,
approval, and disapproval of orc’ers under Section
113(d) of the Clean Air Act. This language must
be included in all proposal notices until Part 65
is promulgated by the Agency.
3. A reference to the 3uthority under which FP.
P Op ise i the rulei kin j dction 1i s been a Ided dt
the c’onc1u 3ofl of the nocice.

-------
PN 113-86-08-22-033
itO SF ,.
‘ , Is
Y , )
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACENC
WAShINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF
AIR AI D RADIATIO
1413 22 1986
MEMORAN DUM
SUBJECT: Sample Federal Register Lanquaqe for Proposal and
Final DCOs
FROM: John B. Rasnic,
Compliance Monitoring Branch
Stationary Source Compliance Division
TO: Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions Il—VI, IX
Air Programs Brach Chiefs
Regions I, VII, VII, X
It has recently come to our attention that the
April 26, 19R3, guidance entitled “Procedures for Review
and Federal Register Publication of DCOs under Section 113(d)
of the Clean Air Act” inadvertently did not include sample
Federal Register language. Attached is sample Federal
Register language for both proposal (see Attachment I) and
final (see Attachment 2) notices. Roth have been manually
updated to reflect recent changes required by our Federal
Register Office to all Federal Register notices. Please
follow this sample lanquaqe beginning immediately.
If you have any questions, please call your SSCD Regional
Liaison.
Attachments
cc: Vicki Reed, Federal Register Officer

-------
—2—
SSCD has become increasinqly sensitive to the absence or
incompatibility of basic compliance data. In light o€ this
situation, we intend n monjtorjnq our national guidance in a
more careful manner. I believe it will he to your benefit as
well.
If you have any questions regarding this memo, please
contact Howard Wright at 382—2826.
P ttachments (4)

-------
I) ‘il 1
( \ItI!) ‘I \il ‘ I.\\ UU\\Il.\I’\LI I()I.( I.\ \(.I \(.
\ IH\(, \ I) ) 16()
AUG 051986
OI- 11(. 1 01-
AIR RAI)I I I0’
MEMORAM DUF4
SUBJECT: Pollutant—Specific Compliance Status Reportinq
FROM: John Rasnic, Chief
Compliance Monitoring ranch
TO: Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI, and IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I, VII, VIII, and X
CDS Contacts, Regions I—X
There has been considerable guidance (attached) issued
from the Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) on the
reporting of the Pollutant Compliance Status (PCMS). The
guidance states that all violating Class A SIP, NSPS and
operating NESUAP sources must be tracked in CDS by the pollu-
tant—specific compliance status, i.e., PCMS and PEJLT on card
3 must be maintained current for such sources. It also
stands to reason that when such violating sources are returned
to compliance, the PCMS for each affected regulated pollutant
is also modified to reflect that event as well.
However, an analysis conducted by the Compliance Analysis
Section (CAS) has identified many sources where this basic
compliance information is erroneous. In too many cases, the
PCMS is not compatible with the SCMS. This adversely impacts
the credibility of our compliance reporting program. I think
it is particularly important that the compliance reporting
guidance he implemented in a consistent, uniform, and correct
fashion. Therefore, I am asking you to ensure the guidance
on this subject is adherred to such that the inteqrity of our
program is maintained.

-------
tO Sr 4 , ATI’AQThENT 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON 0 C 20460
PR 25
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTS Adjustment to the April 10, 1984 Memorandum on
“CDS Data Requirements”.
FROM: John Rasnic, Chief
Compliance Monitoring Branch
TO: Addressees
In discussions with some of you, I believe two points in
the attached memorandum need further elaboration. One, whenever
the air program NESHAP on either page 1 or 2 is discussed, it
is meant to refer only to “operating nontransitory NESHAP —
subject sources”. Specifically excluded from the mandatory
CDS data requirements at this time are renovation, demolition,
or spraying NESHAP sources.
Secondly, all requirements identified in the April 10
memorandum are applicable only to sources covered by federally
approved, promulgated, or enforceable Air regulations.
If you have other questions or comments, please contact me
at FTS 382—2826 or Howard Wright at FTS 382—2831.
Attachment
Addressees :
Air Program Branch Chiefs, Regions i—x
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Regions II, III, V, VII, and IX
CDS Managers, Region I—X

-------
2
As you can see, only three data elements frequently change
with time — SCMS, ATPE, and DTACO The remainder are relatively
stable and need to be ascertained usually only once.
Requirements in addition to those listed above exist for
certain NESHAP, NSPS and Class A SIP sources. The footnotes
explain the necessary applications 0
Data Element Name Abbreviation
SIP Code sipc 1
Pollutant Compliance Status PCMS 2
NEDS Source Classification Code SCC8 3
Process Description PRDS 4
Pollutant (point level) PLUT 4
State Regulation SREG 4
Compliance Status (point level) CMST 4
Pollutant Classification PCLS 5
I hope this sunirnary will assist in defining and establishing
a complete, minimally acceptable CDS data base. If you have any
questions or comments about the requirements, please contact me
at FTS 382—2826 or Howard Wright at FTS 382—2831.
Footnotes:
For any NESHAP, NSPS and Class A SIP source with SCMS=5,
the final compliance date (under ATPE 5) of the compliance
schedule must also be included.
2 For all violating NESHAP, NSPS and Class Al SIP sources,
the violating pollutant must be indicated.
3 Required for all non—utility boilers, i.e., SICC 4911.
4 For all new source program—subject facilities that have
more than one emission point with different start—up
dates.
5 Presently only required for regulated Class A VOC sources.
Attachment

-------
3
Addressees :
Air Program Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs, Regions II, III, V , VII, and IX
CDS Managers, Regions I—X

-------
NtTAOiI NT 2
a•,.
UNITED Si ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WA I1lNGTQN, 0 C O. tiC)
APR I 0 84
SUBJECT: CDS Data Requirements - AIA.N0IS ANDRADIATI0N
PROM: John Rasnic, Chief , ,..
Compliance Monitor’i ’ng Branch
TO: Addressees
SSCD over the years has issued numerous CDS guidance
documents for reporting compliance data. However, we have
been advised that because of this proliferation of guidance,
together with new regional organizations and personnel involved
with CDS, the basic reporting requirements may be unknown or
unclear. Therefore, we are preseiting in this memorandum the
currently applicable minimum information requirements to be
maintained in CDS. All data elern nts, as described below,
must have a value assigned and maintained up to date.
Please resolve any data deficiencLes as soon as possible.
CDS data requirements are focused on three main air
programs. For all NESHAP, NSPS and Class A SIP sources,
these data elements must be maintained:
Data Element Name Abbreviation
Region REGN
Source Name SNME
Address STRT
City Name CYNM
County Name CTNM
State Abbreviation STAB
Zip Code ZIPC
Air Program Code APCD
Air Program Status APST
Pollutant Air Quality Control Indicator PAQC
Pollutant (Source Level) PLLT
Standard Industrial Class Code SICC
Source Classification CLAS
Source Compliance Status SCMS
Action Type* ATPE*
Date Achieved** DTAC**
* Only those actions defined in the August 2, 1983 memo on
the CDS National Action Conversion program (attached) are
required to be maintained.
** A date achieved must be entered for all completed actions
(ATPE)

-------
_1—
A.
s . nti.’ 1ly t tic, c r —tiTPe c’nly d. ita entry inforr tion,
t’ s r’ uirv r’c r’r i n’ t co s er ! rn rou 0
no c t!at in the 1986 rn ric, I nan e’ 1 $hc PC 1S
trac no tr Eill violatincj C1 s5 P IP sources frcri cn1y Cla r4
Al SI c ’urcr s.
Jf tbnr urtb r corir’ nts nr uestionc , n1 e call tie.
Si’ cr?re1y v ur
,Tohp R 0 flasnic, ? ç.t nr Nrector
St tion ry Source Corr’1! ce tDivislcn
flfFj 0 of Air c’u 1tty Plannin nc1 Stanc1ar s
EN—34l:H.Wriaht:mrc3:1—5 .-97:Rn 32O2:382—281Q:Draft 1:J—R—87:
Fina1 1.

-------
PN 113-87-01-09-034
JAN - 9 1987
P4r, Toti jqr i Tn
7 r c ij 1jty AdrIr i tr-.itor
Npt. of Fnvirc’irm,Pnt l fllJ itV
8O cth t 6
rortland, Orec7on 77fl4
D r Tcr
T3ecause of an i u raised P th r c r STAPPAI’AT.APCO
neetinc in Nevada, I thotioht reis uanc of current)y apnhlcabl’
ri1ni um CT)S data r pr’rtinc r u 4 rew nt 1 apnropriate.
Pl a find enclosed:
]. A r er o dated Arril 10, 1 P4 fror’ r’e to a dreGsee5
titled “COS Data P quir !nents.”
2. A rewo dat April 25, 19 l4 from r e to adi ressees
titled Adjustment to th. Apri) 10, 1984 Mnr orar.c ur’
on CDS Data Pequ1ren nts.’
3. A iremo dated Aunust 5, 1 B6 ror m ” to othor titled
pr,)1utant Sneciflc Compliance Status Rerortino.”
Jhereas ?hes ns arc cert 1nlv not the only eadquarter —
requlr ”d CPS quidanco, I h 1ievo they most directly addr s
the issue discussed In 1evada aa I understood It. Please
note that the only point level cni plianCe atatcs (C IST)
trackinc required is for new souroen that have more than one
regu]ated einissicn oint with different itart—up dates.
That is, for exanpie, a power olant that has three NSPS
hollers; one started un in j975, (Subpart D), another atarteci
up in 1984 (Subpart Pa) end the third still under construction.
This facility should have the point level CT ST as well as
the SREG, PTUT, and PPDS data elements maintained In CDS to
di tfnr,utsh t,etwe€-n the three affoctod units, the different
operational tatu , and it h loci subject to different USFS
uhpart . Row vør, since t! r e of thes ’ four data elements

-------
-2-
5. Other unique factors:
total gravity component x any mitigation
or augmenta jo percentage
All augmentatjo (+) and mitigation (-)
amounts added: (if negative, cannot
exceed total gravity component)
D. Initial Minim Settlement AmOUflt:
Preliminary Deterrence Amount + or -
Sun of Flexibility Adjustment Factors:

-------
rC k Ef
L)jc flp 1 l cii’
TITLE 40 — Protection of the Environment
CHAPTER 1. - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PART 65 - DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS
Delayed Compliance Order for [ Source ] , ( Location] .
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Final Rule
SUMMARY: The Administrator of EPA hereby issues a Delayed
Compliance Order to the [ name of source] , The Order
requires the company to bring air emissions from its [ type
of process ] at [ location ] into compliance with certain
regulations contained in the federally—approv [ name of
state ] State Implementation Plan (SIP). [ name of source ]
compliance with the Order will preclude suits under the
federal enforcement and citizen Suit provisions of the Clean
Air Act for violation(s) of the SIP regulations covered by
the Order during the period the Order is in effect.
DATES: This rule takes effect on [ date of publication in
the FEDERAL REGISTER] .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT;
(Include the name, address and telephone number of the
contact person. Generally, this should be the person in

-------
—2—
sample Federal Register documents for proposed federal DCO
actions were sent to you. With the exception of signature
by the Administrator (rather than the Regional Administrator),
the requirements for proposal regarding the number of
copies, certification, etc., are applicable to final Federal
Register DCC documents as well. These requirements are set
forth in the memorandum of March 10, 1978, entitled “Proce-
dures for Federal Register Publication of Proposed Final
Agency Action on Administrative Orders Under Section 113(d)
of the Clean Air Act”.
All DCC actions, proposed and final, involving orders
under Sections 113(d),(3) and (4) remain 8Ubject to DSS
review for national Consistency prior to publication. —
My staff will provide assistance in the development of
these orders and on unique issues involved in federal action
on Section 113(d) (1) orders, and their transmittal will be
under procedures for “special” action. With regard to
DCOs, “special actions” will require Only OE/DSSE concurrence
and will normally be accomplished within 5 days of DSSE
receipt. Supporting materials for Section 113(d)(3) and (4)
orders must be included in these packages, which are to be
sent directly to DSSE. DSSE will forward approved “special”
DCC packages directly to the Federal Register officer for
publication. However, typical Section 113(d) (1) orders will
not be reviewed by DSSE prior to their proposal publication
in the Federal Register and will be considered “normal”
action. This procedure should minimize delay in the imple-
mentation of this program. Please call Chuck Hungerford at
FTS 755—2570 if you should have any questions on this
matter.
. C.- ‘—
b Edward E. ich
Attachme nts
cc: James Parker, PM—212
Federal Register Officer
Michael James, OGC
Section 1l3(d)(5) orders continue to be processed
in accordance with earlier guidance which Regional Offices
have been implementing.

-------
ISSUE NUMBER 5 : How Can EPA Include A Bubble In The Context
Of A Consent Decree?
RESPONSE : EPA cannot endorse a consent decree which contains
a schedule for compliance with a bubble until EPA has promul-
gated final approval of the particular bubble as a SIP revi-
sion (or until the bubble has been approved by the State if
the bubble is granted under a generic bubble provision).
This position is supported by existing Agency policy (“Guidance
for Drafting Judicial Consent Decrees” issued on October 19,
1983), Section 113 of the Clean Air Act and case law.
A consent. decree must require final compliance with
the currently applicable SIP. The Agency’s “Guidance For
Drafting Judicial Consent Decrees,” states that consent
decrees must require final compliance with applicable sta-
tutes or regulations. Other than interim standards, a
decree should not set a standard less stringent than that
required by applicable law or regulation, because a decree
is not a substitute for regulatory or statutory change.
(See page 11 of the Guidance,)
Section 113(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(b)(2),
provides EPA with the authority to initiate civil actions
to obtain injunctive relief to correct source violations
of the SIP. A settlement of such an action must include a
requirement to comply with the SIP provisions that formed
the basis of the request for injunctive relief. The settle-
ment cannot require final compliance with a provision not
yet a part of the federally approved SIP.
Case law also supports the proposition that the SIP may
only be changed through certain specific procedures and that
absent those procedures, rio change can be effected to the
original SIP emission levels. Train v. Natural Resources
Defense Council , 421 U.S. 60 (1975). The SIP, as approved
through a formal mechanism by EPA, sets the official emission
limits and remains the federally enforceable limit until
changed. Ohio Environmental Council v. U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division , 565 F.2d 393
f6th Cir. 1977) .
A decree may contain a general provision recognizing
that either party may petition the court to modify the decree
if the relevant regulation is modified, as would be the case
with a bubble. The following language is an example of such
a reopener clause where EPA approval of the individual bubble
is required.

-------
—2—
If EPA promulgates final approval of a revision to the
applicable regulations under the State Implementation
Plan, either party may, after the effective date of the
revision, petition the Court for a modification of this
decree.
If a federally approved generic procedure is applicable, the
reopener clause should be modified to reflect the particular
generic procedures.
If a SIP revision that affects a decree’s compliance
schedule is finally approved, decree language, as indicated
above, may permit the source to petition the court for a
modification of the schedule. A source is relieved from its
obligation to meet the existing schedule only upon final ap-
proval by EPA, or by the state if under a federally approved
generic bubble regulation, of the SIP revision and only upon
a modification of the decree. The consent decree may not
contain a clause which would automatically incorporate any
future bubble.
It is important to note in the above context that consent
decree compliance schedules must be as expeditious as practi-
cable in terms of implementing a control strategy to achieve
compliance with the existing SIP and may not add in extra
time to provide for final EPA action on a request for a SIP
revision. The “Guidance for Drafting Judicial Consent Decrees
states on page 12 that, “The decree should specify timetables
or schedules for achieving compliance requiring the greatest
degree of remedial action as quickly as possible.” The con-
cept of expeditiousness was taken from §1l3(d)(l) (applicable
to compliance schedules in Delayed Compliance Orders) which
was added to the Clean Air Act by the Amendments of 1977.
The principle was incorporated into Agency guidance issued
shortly after the 1977 amendments pertaining to compliance
schedules in judicial consent decrees, e.g., “Enforcement
Against Major Source Violators of Air and Water Acts” — April
11, 1978 (see pg. 4), and “Section 113(d) (12) of the Clean
Air Act” — August 9, 1973 (see pg. 2).
If you have any questions concerning this guidance please
contact Burton Gray of AED at FTS 382—2868.
/ /
I! —_ \ --
—tt4 } • i/ L
Courtney’M. Price
Assistant Administrator
J AN 17 . Jo

-------
the Regional Office with the greatest knowledge th
Order].
ADDRESSES: The Delayed Compliance Order, supporting material,
and any comments received in response to a prior
FEDERAL REGISTER notice proposing issuance of the
Order are available for public inspection and copying
during normal business hours at:
[ Include the address and appropriate room
number of the Regional Office]
(If appropriate, also include the following sentence:
The record of a public hearing concerning the proposed
order held on [ date of hearing ] at [ location of hearing ]
is also available for public inspection and copying
during normal business hours at the above address)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On [ date proposal notice appeared in the Federal Register ]
the Regional Administrator of EPA’s Region ( relevant number ]
Office published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, [ Federal Register
citation ] , a notice setting out the provisions of a proposed
delayed compliance order for [ name of source ] . The notice
asked for public comn ents and offered the opportunity to
request a public hearing on the proposed Order. [ Indicate
whether or not any public comments or requests for a public

-------
hearing were received in response to the proposal notice.
If comments were received by the Regional Office, summarize
the substance of the comments and indicate why or why not,
and how, the proposed Order was amended in consideration of
the comments. If the Regional Office received requests for
a public hearing, indicate why or why not a public hearing
was held. If a public hearing was held, note the date of
notice in the Federal Register announcing the hearing, the
time and place the hearing was held, and summarize the
substance of the comments submitted at the hearing. Explain
why or why not, and how, the proposed Order was amended in
consideration of the comments.]
Therefore, (or, if comments have been received, In
consideration of the comments received on the proposed
Order,] a delayed compliance order effective this date is
issued to [ name of source ] by the Administrator of EPA
pursuant to the authority of Section 113(d) [ appropriate
subsection ] of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413(d)(_).
The Order places [ name of source ] on a schedule tO bring its
[ type of process ] at ( location ] into compliance as expedi-
tiously as practicable with ( citation to the regulation
covered by the order ] , a part of the federally—approved
Lname of State ] State Implementation Plan. The Order also
imposes [ include as appropriate. . . interim requirements
which meet Sections 113(d) (1) (C) and 113(d) (7) of the Act,

-------
and emission monitoring and reporting requirements. If any
of the three elements are absent, include a finding that
their inclusion in the Order would be unreasonable] . If the
conditions of the Order are met, it will permit ( name of
source ] to delay compliance with the SIP regulations covered
by the Order until ( date for compliance set by the Order] .
The company is unable to .inunediately comply with these
regulations.
— t-!1 • ai p 1i h ‘ ni is
r ’u1 e4, -tk - el1e rin mia
pliance with the rder by ( name of sou e ] will preclude
federal’\nforcement action\under Section 113 oI the Act for
violation¼of the SIP regul ions covered by th\Order during
the Period\he Order is in ef\ect. Citizen suits\under
Section 304 \f the Act are simi arily precluded. f the
\dministrator\eetermines that ( n .me of source ] is violation
oè\a requirerneA, contained in the\rder one or morkof the
acti ns require by Section ll3(d)( ( of the Act wi l\be
initi ed. Pub1 ation of this notic\of final ruiem ing
constitt ”tes final’ gency action for th purposes of juJ cial
review und r Secti 307(b) of the Act.
The prov ions a the Order will be su marized, as se forth
below, in 40 Ch\Part\ 5. The provisions o?\40 CFR Part 6\will
be promulgated b \ A oon, and will contain \he procedures

-------
EPA’S issuance, appro 1, and disapprova of orders
und Section 113(d) of the\Act. In addition\Part 65 will
conta\n sections Bummarizing\the orders issued ’\ap roveds
and di pproved by EPA. A Pri\r notice proposing\regulations
for 40 c\R Part 65, published a \40 FR 149876 (Apr1\ 2,
1975), wi\1 be withdrawn, and repl\ced by a notice
promulgati these new regu lations.J\
EPA has determined that the Order shall be effective
upon publication of this notice because of the need to
immediately place [ name of source ] on a schedule for compli-
ance with the applicable requirement(s) of the [ name of
State ) State Implementation Plan.
h. tt -i
Dated: ________________
Douglas H. Costle
Administrator

-------
If the notice will be published after 40 CFR Part 65 is
promulgated, or if a prior final notice issuing an Order to
a source in the particular State has been previously published,
the aniendatory language should read as follows:
In consideration of the foregoing, Chapter 1 of Title 40 of
t CQ e of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
,, , Ir Q
( re-’ 4 tij 4 4-4 r ‘f , ‘. 4 . L4
-Part 65 — DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS
31 trã4c
4; e - -- ±i -d #o R S
i
S65. [ I Federal delayed compliance orders issued
under Section 113(d) (1), (3), and (4) of the A:t.
* * * * *
SIP reg— Final
Date of gulation compliance
Source Location Order No. FR proposal involved date
* * *
( _______It _______ ] ( _______ ] E _______ I ( _______ ] I _______
Fill in appropriate subsection as supplied by
40 CFR Part 65 or the May 9, 1978, memorandum entitled
“ Federal Register Notices Proposing Approval, Disapproval,
or Issuance of Administrative Orders Under Section 113(d) of
the Clean Air Act”.

-------
J k C)
TITLE 40 — Protection of the Environment F v ./ f’d j
CHAPTER 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PART 65 - DELAYED COMPLIANCE ORDERS
( Approval, Disapproval ] of a Delayed Compliance
Order Issued by [ name of issuing authority ]
to [ name of source ]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Fina.t Rule
SUMMARY: The Administrator of EPA hereby ( approves, dis-
approves ] a Delayed Compliance Order issued by [ name of
issuing authority ] to the [ name of source ] . The Order
requires the company to bring air emissions from its [ type
of process ] at [ location ] into compliance with certain
regulations contained in the federally—approved ( name of
state ] State Implementation Plan (SIP). [ Insert the
following sentence if the Order is approved: Because of the
Administrator’s approval, ( name of source ] compliance with
the Order will preclude suits under the federal enforcement
and citizen suit provisions of the Clean Air Act for viola-
tion(s) of the SIP regulations covered by the Order during
the period the Order is in effect.
DATES: This rule takes effect on [ date of publication in
the FEDERAL REGISTER] .

-------
For further information contact:
(Include the name, address and telephone number of the
contact person. Generally, this should be the person in
the Regional Office with the greatest knowledge of the
Order].
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Delayed Compliance Order, any
supporting material, and any comments received in
response to a prior FEDERAL REGISTER notice proposing
[ approval, disapproval ] of the Order are available for
public inspection and copying during normal business
hours at:
[ Include the address and appropriate room
number of the Regional Office]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On [ date proposal notice appeared in the Federal Register )
the Regional Administrator of EPA’S Region [ relevant number ]
Office published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, [ Federal Register
citation] , a notice proposing [ approval, disapproval ] of a
delayed compliance order issued by [ name of issuing authority ]
to the ( name of source] . The notice asked for public
comments by [ date the public comment period expired ] on
EPA’s proposed ( approval, disapproval ] of the Order.
[ Indicate whether or not any public comments were received

-------
in response to the proposal notice. If comments were
received by the Regional Office, summarize the substance of
the comments and indicate why or why not the proposed action
was changed in consideration of the comments].
Insert the following paragraph if the Order is approved:
Therefore, (or, if comments have been received, In
consideration of the comments received on EPA’s proposed
action,] the delayed compliance order issued to ( name of
source ) is approved by the Administrator of EPA pursuant to
the authority of Section 113(d) (2) of the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. 74l3(d)(2). The Order places ( name of source ] on
a schedule to bring its [ type of process ] at ( location ) into
compliance as expeditiously as practicable with ( citation to
the regulation covered by the order ] , a part of the federally—
approved ( name of State ] State Implementation Plan. The
Order also imposes [ include as appropriate. . . interim
requirements which meet Sections 113(d)(l)(C) and 113(d) (7)
of the Act, and emission monitoring and reporting requirements.
If any of the three elements are absent, include a finding
that their inclusion in the Order would be unreasonable].
If the conditions of the Order are met, it will permit [ name
of source ) to delay compliance with the SIP regulation5
covered by the Order until [ date for compliance set by the
Order). The company is unable to immediately comply with
these regulations.

-------
Insert the following language if the Order is disapproved:
Therefore, (or, if comments have been received, in
consideration of the comments received on EPA’s proposed
action,) the delayed compliance order issued to [ name of
source ] is disapproved by the Administrator of EPA pursuant
to the authority of Section 113(d) (2) of the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. 7413(d)(2). [ Specifically explain the basis for
the dissapproval]. Because of the Administrator’s dis-
approval, the Order is not effective under Section 113(d) of
the Clean Air Act.
[ f the notice will e published before 40 FR Part 65 is
pr ulgated, the foil wing two paragraphs mu t be included:
(The entire first parag ph should be include if the
Order\(s approved. If t Order is disapProvkd, only the
last se\tense in the paragr h should be includ 3 in the
notice.)\ \ \
Beca e the Order has bee\ approved by EPA, c\mpiiance
with its te ns will preclude fe ra1 enforcement ac on
under Sectio\113 of the Act for \iolations of the
regulations co\ered by the Order du\ing the period the\
Order is in effkct. Citizen suits un er Section 304 of\the
Act are sirnilaril precluded. If the ministrator dete\
mines that [ name of ource] is in violat\on of a requirem t

-------
c tained in the Order, o or more of the a ions required
by\ection 113(d) (9) of th Act will be initia\ed. Publica—
tion\ this notice of final\ rulemaking constit\tes final
Agency ‘ ç tion for the pur oses’\of judicial rev iew\under
Section 30\4 b) of the Act. \
The provisions of t e Order will be s marized, as set
fo\th below, in 40 CFR rt 65. The provi ons of 40 CFR
Part\65 will be Promulgat\d by EPA soon, and’\will contain
the p cedures for EPA’S i¼uance, approval, d disapproval
of orde\s under Section 113(k of the Act. In \ddition
Part 65 1l contain sections ‘ 4, mmarizing the orè rs issued,
approved, \nd disapproved by EPA\ A prior notice oposing
re u1ations\or 40 CFR Part 65, p lished at 40 FR l\9876
(April 2, 197¼, will be withdrawni\and replaced by a otice
promulgating th e new regulations.]
Insert the following language if appropriate:
EPA has determined that its [ approval, disapproval ] of
the Order shall be effective upon publication of this notice
because of the need to immediately place ( name of source ] on
a schedule which is effective under the Clean Air Act for
compliance with the applicable requirement(s) of the [ name
of State ] State Implementation Plan.
_________ 4Z U.6.C. 7il3( ), 7C0-l-i
Dated: ________________ ___________________________________
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator

-------
U a notice approving an order will be published aft r
40 CER Part 65 is promulgated, or if a prior final notice
approving an Order for a source in the particular State has
been previously published, the arnendatory language should
read as follows:
In consideration of the foregoing, Chapter 1 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
Part 1 65 - DELLP YED COMPLIhNCE ORDERS
I. a +Jicr y r; +Ofl 6r r4 6r4 w reed a
Au44ior; kj: a
e
S65. I ] EPA Approval of tate delayed compliance orders
issued to major stationary sources.
* * * * *
SIP regu— Final
lation(s) Date of compliance
Source Location Order No. involved FR proposal date
* * *
1 _____ 11 _____ II ___ _____ I I
Fill in appropriate subsection as supplied by
40 CFR Part 65 or the May 9, 1978, memorandum entitled
“ Federal Register Notices Proposing Approval, Disapproval,
or Issuance of Administrative Orders Under Section 113(d) of
the Clean Air Act”.

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(40 CFR Part 651
(Docket No. ___
STATE AND FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PERMITTING A DELAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Proposed Delayed Compliance Order
for ( source ] , ( location ]
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to withdraw a prior
FEDERAL REGISTER notice proposing a Delayed Compliance
Order for ( name of source ] at ( location] . This action is
being taken because ( name of source ] is flO longer in
violation of the ( name of State ] State Implementation
Plan provisions covered by the proposed Order.
DATE: This withdrawal is immediately effective.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(Include the name of the person in the Regional
Office with the greatest knowledge of the order]
*opt ional

-------
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A FEDERAL REGISTER notice published at _____ FR _____
( date ] solicited public comments and offered the opportunity
to request a public hearing on a proposed Delayed Compliance
Order to be issued by EPA to [ source ] at [ location] [ Name
of source ] has subsequently achieved compliance with the
[ name of State ] State Implementation Plan regulations
covered by the Order. [ Indicate how compliance was demon-
strated ie source test].
In consideration of the foregoing, the proposal published
in the FEDERAL REGISTER C FR ) on ( date ] entitled
Dproposed Delayed Compliance Order for ( source ] , [ location]”,
is hereby withdrawn.
Dated:
(Name)
Regional Administrator
Region [ )

-------
ID !I4
(
UN ITED STATES ENV I RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Policy on the Availability of Low—Solvent Technology
Schedules in Clean Air Act Enforcement Actions
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
jf Ai and adiation (ANR—443)
A .,,
7 ’S ct ng sis an dministrator
for Enfor ent and Compliance Monitoring
Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
Your staffs have requested resolution of the issue of when
low—solvent technology (LST) schedules can be considered as an
available method of compliance in cases brought to abate emis-
sions of volatile organic compounds (VOC). They also asked for
guidance on what period of time should be given in a compliance
schedule. In response, we have determined the following Agency
policy.
Background
In earlier guidance addressing options for VOC control, EPA
encouraged the low solvent (reformulation) approach. Though
compliance dates in the SIPs were generally December 31, 1982,
EP recognized when the earlier guidance was issued that it
could take longer than December 31, 1982 for sources to develop
and implement complying coatings. Through surveillance and
enforcement activities by the States and EP in recent years,
it became evident that many sources had not made serious efforts
to find complying coatings or, in some instances, efforts
directed toward complying coatings failed to yield desirable
results. Often, sources were not vigorously pursuing the
alternative of installing add—on controls. As a result we now
face extended non—compliance, increased VOC enforcement activity,

-------
—2—
and a need to issue specific guidance or iat is an acceptable
schedule for VOC violators where pursuit of LST is being con-
sidered. It must be emphasized that more than five years have
passed since the VOC regulations were first adopted by the
States. With the ozone attainment dates already past in many
areas and less than two years away in extension areas, it is
critically important to assure compliance in an expeditious
manner.
Policy
LST schedules may be used in EPA enforcement actions as
long as the following five Conditions are met:
1. The schedule must be expeditious. it can provide no
more than three—months from the date of filing of the
complaint (or equivalent State action in cases where
the State is pursuing the enforcement action) for a
source to demonstrate compliance using complying
coatings.
2. Add—on controls must be øart of the schedule with a
commitment to implementation should the LST program
fail. The add—on control program can extend up to an
additional twelve months. It must begin at the end of
the three-month (or shorter) LST schedule and have
increments of progress encompassing: commencing engineer-
ing studies, ordering control equipment, commencing
installation of control equipment, completing installa-
tion, and demonstrating compliance.
3. Final compliance cannot extend beyond December 1987.
4. Stipulated penalties must be part of the schedule for
failure to meet incremental dates of the add—on control
program.
5. Civil penalties must be obtained. (This requirement is
established by previous policies such as the Seoternber 20,
1982 Post—1982 Enforcement Policy and the June 28, 1984
“timely and appropriate” guidance for the air proqra .
These policies are located at Sections V.R. and 1.1.
respectively in the Clean Air Act Policy Compendium.)
Penalties assessed by EPA must be consistent with the
September 12, 1984 CAA Stationary Source Civil Penalty
Policy, as amended, and penalties assessed by States
must be consistent with the June 26, 1984 guidance by
the Deputy Administrator entitled “Implementing the
State/Federal Partnership in Enforcement; State/Federal
Enforcement Agreements.” These policies are located at

-------
—3—
Sections V.Y. of the Clean Air Act Policy Compendium
and Tab GM—4l of the General Enforcement Policy Compen—
dium, resoectively.
Schedules resolving State. enforcement actions will be
evaluated in light of this policy to determine the appropriate—
necs of EPA deferring to the State resolution. A State enforce-
ment resolution should include at least conditions (1), (2), (3)
and (5) of those required in EPA actions.
This policy is effective on the date of this memorandum,
except for the following limited situation. To allow for a
smooth transition, ongoing State settlement negotiations where
greater than three—month LST schedules are being Considered
will be accepted as long as the other elements of this policy
for a State enforcement resolution are satisfied. This limited
exception will terminate ninety days from the date of this
guidance.
This policy is not applicable to schedules issued pursuant
to Section 113(d). Approvability of those schedules is depen-
dent upon meeting the requirements of Section 113(d). However,
in making a determination of expeditiousness for a DCO, the
concepts outlined in conditions (1) and (2) of this guidance
should be followed.
If you have any questions on this policy, please call your
Regional liaison contact in OAQPS’s Stationary Source Compliance
Division or OECrI’s Air Enforcement Division.
cc: Air Division Director, Regions I-.X
Regional Counsel, Regions i—x

-------
—‘
EJi\ ITEI) ST\TES EN \ IRON\IENT U. PROTECTION A(;E (:’
wAsIIlr\;TUN,J) C. 20460
t
JUN -2
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 113(d)(4) Letter to facturers Institute
FROM: John Rasnic, Chief
Compliance Monitor
TO: Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI and IX
Air Programs Branch Chiefs
Regions I, VII, VIII and X
Attached is a letter I sent to Robert Gere of the Can
Manufacturers Institute (CMI) on April 22, 19R6. This was
in reply to his December 20, 1985 letter requesting 113(d)(4)
delayed compliance orders for CMI member companies to allow
the industry additional time to continue development of com-
plying end—sealing compounds for metal cans. Please note
that although my reply summarizes the primary requirements
of Section 113(d) as they relate to the CMI situation, they
also may be used to evaluate other 113(d)(4) requests by
specifying the necessary information each source seeking an
order must provide to support the Agency’s finding that its
innovative technology proposal meets all of the statutory
criteria.
We expect that several can coaters will now apply to their
individual states or Regions for innovative technology orders.
In the interest of national consistency, Headquarters should
be aware of how individual Regions are interpreting the key
requirements for issuance of an innovative technology DC().
For example, a primary question which we have interest in is
whether or not the technology being nroposed can qualify as
“new,” given the existing Philippine technology (this tech-
nology was improperly referred to as “South Korean” in the G9re
letter). Once the industry receives the attached response,
presumably any individual source which anpljes will provide
sufficient facts and rationale for the Agency tomake this
determination.

-------
—
Also, there is some question as to whether or not two or
more sources can receive a DCO for developing a technolociy
that is arguably the same. We are requesting an OGC opinion
on this question, and it will facilitate OGC’s deliberations
to have specific applications to look at.
For these two reasons, and to generally expedite SSCD’s
formal concurrence in any innovative technology DCO a state
or Region proposes to issue (see Kathleen Bennett’s April 26,
1983 memo entitled “Procedures for Review and Federal Register
Publication of Delayed Compliance Orders Under Section 113(d)
of the Clean Air Act”), Regions should keep Headquarters
apprised of applications received and the Regions’ intended
disposition of them. Contacts in Headquarters are Kevin Bell
in SSCD (FTS—382—2969) and Jane Souzon in OECM, Air Enforcement
Division (FTS—475—7088).
Attachment
cc: Regional Counsel, Regions I—X

-------
ID Sr 4
UMTED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE C
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4 L
p 22 l S oF 1CFOF
Ala AND L DIAr oN
Robert A. Gere
Co—Chairman
( iI nvironrierta1 puality Committee
1’S25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, nr Ofl3
Pear Mr. Gere:
This is in reply to your T)ecer tber ‘ fl, 1985 letter in
which you requested that the Agency grant your member com-
panies a flelayed Cnr’rnliance order (r)C()) under Section 113
(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to allow the industry
additional time to continue development of complying end—
sealinc compounds for metal cans. Your letter was not
orocedurally correct in its approach to the PCO process. The
following information is sunplied to facilitate your applica-
tion for a T)CP by outlining recuirements of the process in
more detail.
It is important to note at the outset that Section 112
(d)(4) does not permit the issuance of a “blanket” E to
cover numerous sources within a particular business group or
industrial category. This means that PCO’s must be applied
for and issued on a source—by—source basis. Application
should be made to the appropriate State or EPA Regional
Pffice with a courtesy copy to me to exoedite the 1eadouarters
concurrence role in the process.
it may be useful to your members for them to have a brief
summary of the primary requirements of Section 113(d) as they
relate to the situation you describe. The following outlines
these requirements which are found in Sections 113(d)(4)(A)—(D)
of the CAA, as amended August l97 7. Each source seeking an
order must provide the information necessary to support the
Ptnencv’s finding that its innovative technology nroposal
meets all of the statutory criteria.
Criterion A(1 )
“the source will e,cpeditiously use new means of emission
limitation...” (Section 113 d(4)(A))

-------
—
fliscuss ion
To determine whether or not the nroi,osed technology
cTualifies as “new means”,, the source must explain specifically
a) what the nroposed technology is (a detailed descrint5on of
the technoloqy is needed) and b) in what sense or aspect it
is “new”. hje are aware that there is an existing low solver t
technology presently in use by some South Korean canning
ooerations similar to yours. If your proposed “new means” is
a reformulation, please state snecificallv why you helieve it
can gualify as “new” desnite the existence of this technology.
Criterion ;(2 )
“...which (new means the Administrator determines is
likel’, to be adequatel.’, demonstrated (within the meaning of
Section 1lJ(a)(l) of this title) uoon expiration of the order”
(Section ll3(d)( )(A))
fliscuss ion
The source should provide information to enable the Agency
to determine 1) the likelihood that the new means will he
adequately demonstrated, and 2) how long development will
take. This information should include a statement as to the
present state of development, what steps remain to be taken,
what problems are foreseen, and why the source believes
adecuate demonstration is likely within the predicted time
period. Please note that if an extended research and develoo—
ment oeriod is needed, it may be difficult to meet this test.
Criterion
“such new means of emission limitation is not likely to
be used by such source unless an order is granted under this
subsection”, Section ll3(d)(4)( ))
Discussion
The source should submit a statement explaining why it
would not attempt to use the “new r earts” unless a DC() is
issued to that source.
Criterion C
“such new means of emission limitation is determined by
the dministrator to have a substantial likelihood of——
Ci) achieving areater continuous emission reduction than
the means of emission limitation which, but for such
order, would be required; or

-------
—3—
(ii) achieving an eguivalent continuous reduction at
lower cost in terms of energy, economic, or nonair
quality environmental impact; and...” (Section 113
(d) (4) (C))
r)jscusS ion
The source shouLd identify the conventional means it
would otherwise use, arid which subsection it is claiming as
the basis for its flCP. tf subsection (ii) is the basis for
the claim, the source should document the relative emissions,
energy, or cost reduction involved.
Criterion T )
“compliance by the source with the reauirement of the
applicable implementation olan would he impractical orior to,
or during, the installation of such new means”. (Section 1l
d(4) (fl)
fliscuss ion
The source should submit information on why it is
impracticable to comply with the SIP by using an existing
means of control. This information should specifically
include a discussion of why the source could not use the
South Korean technology referred to in discussion of Criterion
(l) as an interim means of compliance.
A dditional Information
The existence of the South Korean technology is also
relevant to the requirements of Section 113(d)(7), which
requires that any source receiving an order shall use the
“best practicable system or systems of emission reduction...
for the period durinq which such order is in effect and shall
comply with such interim requirements as the Administrator
determines are reasonable and practicahie.” kn arrnlicant
should state any reasons why it is impracticable to use
existing technology during the period that the “new means” is
being developed.
In addition to the information needed to make nositive
findings with regard to Criteria A through D above, the source
should include in its submission a proposed compliance schedule
containing increments of progress which require compliance
with the requirement postponed as expeditiously as practicable.
The increments in this schedule should he stated as specific
actions or achievements which clearly demonstrate the progress
of the new technology as it is developed. This will assist
the A qericv in developing the schedule required by Section
113(d)(6). When developing this schedule, the Agency has the

-------
—4—
r,otion of includina interim requirements that 1) prohibit the
source from allowing its emissions to increase durinq the
period of the compliance schedule required by Section 113(d)(6)
if those emissions are contributing to the violations, and 2)
prohibit the source from expanding production or obtaining
new customers unless complying coatings .ire used.
In closing, please note that languaqe in the Clean ir
P ct following section 113(d)(4)(T)) specifies that an order
“... shall provide for final compliance with the requirement
in the applicable irnplernentat-jon plan as exnedi.tiouslv as
practicable, but in no event later than five years after the
date on which the source would otherwise he required to he in
full compliance with the requirement”. Therefore, an order
cannot extend more than five years beyond the final compliance
date specified for a source or source category in the state
ir D1ementation plan.
The qency want-s to encourage the use of innovative
technology but issuance of DCP’s is discretionary. In
exercising this discretion, we are concerned about the ozone
standard attainment date of December 1987. For any proposed
order extending beyond this attainment date, we need a justifi-
cation for the extension, such as substantial benefit to the
environment from the new technology development, or application
of the technology to a wider range of sources, resulting in
higher compliance rates.
we appreciate your interest in innovative technology as a
means of emission control. Please contact me at 382—2R26 if
you have any guestions.
Sincerely yours,
t J
John Rasnic, C ief
Comnliance Monitoring Rranch
Stationary Source Compliance Division
cc: Richard Torrito

-------
Ut1ITEr ‘ J”VIRO ‘NT’, PR()TECT ON AGENCY
— ___
4 eg 1 ’
N’R 22 966
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of National Program Guidance —
Enforcement Applications of Continuous Emission
Monitoring System Data
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Michael S. Aj.ushjn 1 Zc 4 4 1 - ..,.
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
TO: Addressees
Attached is final enforcement guidance advocating increased
use of continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) data for
direct Federal enforcement of stationary source air pollution
requirements. This guidance directly supports EPA’s Continuous
Compliance Strategy.
The guidance points out many important uses to which EPA
can put CEMS data, both where CEMS is, and is not, the official
compliance test method (“Compliance Metho&). Since the
guidance may be helpful to State and local agencies, the
Regional Offices may forward it to them at their discretion.
Issues Raised by Commenters
On January 31, 1986, Headquarters sent out for comment a
draft document entitled “Program Guidance on Enforcement
Application of Continuous Emission Monitoring System Data”.
Six Regional Offices, ESED, CPDD and OGC commented on the
draft of the guidance. In general, the commenters supported
the draft. Some commenters sought clarifications or disagreed
with certain elements of the draft. Commenters raised the
following key issues:

-------
—2—
o Can CEMS data stand alone as the basis for 1SSuj
a Notice of Violation (“NOv”) or Finding of Violation
( “FOV”) ? Yes. Section 113(a)(l) of the Clean Air
Act expressly permits the Administrator to issue an
NOV “on the basis of any information available to
him...” See Section 111(B) and footnote 4 at page 3
of the Guidance.
O If an NOV does not spur compliance, must EPA issue
a second NOV based on Compliance Method data to sup-
port further enforcement actions ? A second NOV is
not necessarily required. If a litigation referral
is developed, however, it should include proof of
violation based on Compliance Method data. See
Section 111(B) at page 4.
o Can EPA rely on CEMS data alone to issue a §l13(a)
administrative order where CEMS is not the Compliance
Method ? No. EPA should not issue an order for
violation of an emission limit without having at
least some Compliance Method data showing a violation
of that limit.
o Are CEMS Data as Reliable as Compliance Method Data?
CEMS data are likely to be as reliable and credi —
ble as Compliance Method data. See Section 111(B)
and footnote number 6 at pages 4 and 5.
Please direct any comments or questions about the guidance
to Louis Paley (SSCD) or Laurence Groner (AED) at 382—2835 or
382—2820, respectively.
At t a chme n t
Addres sees
Regional Counsels
Region I — X
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Region IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Region VII, VIII and X
Air Branch Chiefs
Region I - X

-------
—3—
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Region II, III, IV, V, VI and IX
CEMS Enforcement Workgroup
Jerry Emison, OAQPS
Jack Farmer, ESED
George Walsh, ESED
Roger Shigehara, ESED
Darryl Tyler, CPDD
Rodney Midgett, EMSL/RTP
Darryl von Lehmden, EMSL/RTP
Earl Salo, OGC
Joseph Lees, DOJ
Reed Neuman, DOJ

-------
O
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ W. . 20460
L pRO1t
MEMORANDUM APR 22 6
SUBJECT: Guidance: Enforcement Applications of Continuous
Emission Monitoring System Data
FROM: Edwar d E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Michael S. Alushjn
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
TO: Addressees
I. Purpose and Application
The purpose of this guidance is to increase the use of
continuous emission monitoring system (“CEMS”) data in the
Agency’s compliance and enforcement program.i/ EPA intends
in this way to strengthen its efforts to ensure that sources
comply with applicable law on a Continuous basis and to
enforce against those that do not.
This document addresses the following three enforcement
applications for CEMS data:
1) the governing regulation specifies CEMS as the
official compliance test method (“Compliance
Method”), e.g. , the Reference Method for the
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS);
2) the governing regulation specifies some method
other than CEMS as the Compliance Method; and
1/ “CEMS” as used in this guidance principally means instrumental
or manual Continuous emission monitoring systems. Furthermore,
as with any other data, “CEMS” as used in this guidance assumes
that EPA confirms that the specific data, normally available
from the source, are reasonably accurate and precise. This
information includes data such as those acquired during
Performance Tests, Performance Specification Tests, and periodic
calibrations of the CEMS. For additional information see 6/.

-------
—2—
.. ) e v. ng eguiation concerns proper
operation and maintenance, recordkeeping,
and other requirements where no test method
would be specified.
This guidance applies to any Federally—enforceable
regulation or other requirement governing emissions, operations
and maintenance Y’O&M”), and monitoring and reporting pro-
cedures for stationary Sources of air pollution. It Should be
read together with the attached document entitled “Guidance
Concerning EPA’s Use of Continuous Emission Monitoring Data”
(August 12, 1982).2/
II. Conclusion
EPA can put CEMS data to a variety of important enforcement
uses, irrespective of whether the legal requirement being
enforced specifies CEMS as the Compliance Method. For example,
EPA can rely on CEMS data alone to issue Findings of Violation
(“FOVs”) and Notices of Violation (“NOVs”).
However, the legal requirement must specify CEMS as the
Complianc-e Method in order for EPA to rely on CEMS data alone
to refer a case to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), to
prove a violation of an emission limitation in Federal district
court, or to issue a Notice of Noncompliance (“NON”) under
§120. The same is true if EPA is to rely on CEMS data alone
to issue an administrative order respecting emissions violations
under §113(a).
On technical grounds, CEMS data typically are at least
comparable to Compliance Method and inspection data derived
from equally well—executed and quality—assured monitoring.
CEMS data certainly are more representative of actual continuous
emissions than are some traditional sources of compliance
data, such as emission factors and engineering calculations.
III. Discussion
A. Where the Governing Regulation Specifies CEMS as the
Compliance Method
CEMS is the Compliance Method in NSPS Subparts Da (covering
new electric steam generators), P, Q and R (covering new non-
ferrous smelters), and in certain SIP provisions, Federally—
2/ The 1982 guidance clarifies, among other things, the cir-
cumstances under which CEMS constitutes the applicable Compliance
Method and the role played by CEMS under State Implementation
Plans (“SIPs”) which do not identify any Compliance Method.

-------
—3—
enforceable Compliance orders and permits. For Sources covered
by these provisions, EPA can rely on CEMS data alone to take
all of the following enforcement actions:
1. Devise a priority list for inspections and
other investigative activities;
2. Issue NOVS to SIP sources, or FOVs to non—SIP
Sources ;3/
3. Document that a violation has continued 30 days
beyond the date of the NOV in SIP cases;
4. Quantify the severity of violations for penalty
calculation purposes, in negotiation or litigation;
5. Issue an administrative order under §113(a);
6. Issue a §120 NON;
7. Formally refer a case to the DOJ for filing as
a civil or criminal action; and
8. Prove a violation in civil or criminal litigation
in Federal district court.
B. Where the Governing Regulation Specifies Some
Method Other Than CEMS as the Compliance Method
Here, CEMS data still can be very useful in initiating
and supporting cases alleging emission violations. The
Agency can rely on CEMS data alone to take any of the first
four enforcement actions listed at Section 111(A) above.
For example, EPA can use CEMS data standing alone as the
basis for issuing an NOV or FOV for violation of an emission
1imitation 4/ Proof of the existance of a violation of an
emission limit for purposes of a compliance, order or litigation
virtually always must be based on Compliance Method data.
However, issuance of an NOV or FOV requires a less rigorous
evidentiary showing.
3/ While some Regional Offices do issue FOVs, it should be
noted that EPA has no legal obligation to do so.
4/ The Clean Air Act expressly permits the Administrator to
issue an NOV “on the basis of any information available to
him ... that any person is in violation of any requirement of
an applicable implementation plan”. 42 USC §7413(a)(1).

-------
—4—
It after issuance, tne source fails to come into compliance
with the emission regulation, EPA normally must acquire Corn—
pliance Method evidence before it takes any of the last four
enforcement actions listed at Section 111(A) above.S/ However,
a second NOV is not necessary under these circumstances,
assuming that there is evidence that a sufficient relationship
exists between the CEMS data and the Compliance Method data.
In addition, CEMS data also can be used in support of
emission violation cases to quantify emission levels and to
document that a violation continued 30 days beyond the NOV
issuance date. While EPA is frequently prepared to argue
that any particular day should be considered a day of violation
in the absence of emission data per Se, CEMS data should
serve to strengthen the government’s case.
We believe that courts will generally accept non—Compliance
Method CEMS data as an indicator of the magnitude and duration
of emission violations because they represent emissions
comparably to Compliance Method data. 6/
5/ However, in most circumstances a Regional Office may rely
on non—Compliance Method CEMS data alone to support a referral
where it constitutes a pre—negotiated settlement agreement,
referred for the single purpose of lodging with the court.
The exception would be in situations where adverse public
comments on the decree may be expected, and that could lead
the government not to request the court to enter the decree.
In such exceptional circumstances, the referral must be based
upon Compliance Method data.
6/ We assume that CEMS and Compliance Method data will be
reliable and comparable to each other. This assumption is
based principally upon three facts. First, the Agency requires
sources to acquire and report reliable data (whether CEMS or
Compliance Method). With respect to CEMS, this is accomplished
by requiring sources to: (a) purchase, install and operate
the CEMS in accordance with specific location criteria and
performance standards; (b) demonstrate achievement of the
Performance Specifications by comparing the CEMS and the Com-
pliance Method results; (c) implement (at least daily)
calibrations and O&M procedures; and (d) operate the CEllS
during all Performance Tests. (If doubts remain, EPA can
require additional comparative tests using §114.)
Second, the Agency has acquired data from numerous sources.
Such data document the fact that sources are able to, and
generally do report reliable and comparable data to agencies.
Such documentation includes data acquired: (a) during the
(footnote 6/ continued on page 5)

-------
—5—
LJ of urse, CEMS data provide an altogether appro-
priate basis upon which to issue a S114 request for Compliance
Method data.
C. Where No Compliance Method Is Specified by the
Governing Regulation
This Section applies exclusively to requirements which
govern violations of other than emission regulations. Here,
the Agency may rely upon CEMS data alone to enforce directly
various O&M, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
set out in NSPS regulations, SIPs, and Federally—enforceable
orders and permits.
For example, Section 60.11(d) of the NSPS regulations
establishes a general “good practices” O&M requirement. This
requirement identifies no specific compliance method. Rather,
it states that the “determination of whether acceptable
procedures are being used will be based on information
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results ,
opacity observations, review of operating and maintenance
procedures, and inspection of the source.” (Emphasis added.)
Similar language is contained in many SIPs. CEMS data alone
are sufficient to prove violations of such O&M requirements.
IV. Recommendations
CEMS provides a very useful and versatile source of
enforcement data. EPA can use such data to take many traditional
enforcement actions, often even when CEMS is not specified as
the Compliance Method. Therefore, we encourage Regional Offices
to use CEMS data consistent with the aforementioned paragraphs.
In addition, we encourage Regional Offices to:
A. Make CEMS data acquisition and evaluation a
standard operating procedure;
(continuation of footnote 6/)
development of the CEMS Performance Specifications and
(Proposed) Appendix F of Part 60 (Quality Assurance Require-
ments for SO 2 CEMS); (b) by receipt of hundreds of Performance
Specification Test Results; and (C) while performing quality
assurance and compliance audits of CEMS. (See, e.g. , EPA
publications entitled “Sumniary of Opacity and Gas CEMS Audit
Programs” (EPA—340/1—84—016, September 1984); and “A Compilation
of SO 2 and NOx Continuous Emission Monitor Reliability Information”
(EPA—340/l—83—012, January 1983).)
Third, all certifications of visible emission observers
are based upon quantitative comparisons between observers and
“smoke schools’” opacity CEMS.

-------
—6—
B. Cite CEMS data as supplementary evidence of violations
in each NOV or §113(a) administrative order issued
whenever the CEMS data substantiate the primary
evidence; and
C. Incorporate CEMS into ongoing enforcement actions
( e.g. , (1) consider requiring chronic violators to
install and use CEMS; (2) cite CEMS procedural
violations whenever they exist; and (3) cite the
source for failure to properly operate and maintain
its facility, based upon CEMS data).
Attachment
Addressees
Regional Counsels
Region I — X
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Region IV and VI
Air and Toxjcs Division Directors
Region VII, VIII and X
Air Branch Chiefs
Region I — X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Region II, III, IV, V, VI and IX
CEMS Enforcement Workgroup
Jerry Emison, OAQPS
Jack Farmer, ESED.
George Walsh, ESED
Roger Shigehara, ESED
Darryl Tyler, CPDD
Rodney Midgett, EMSL/RTP
Darryl von Lehinden, EMSL/RTP
Earl Salo, OGC
Joseph Lees, DOJ
Reed Neuman, DOJ

-------
U:.d lED srA S £N VH OIIMEt T IL ,‘ROl ELTION AGENCY
WASHINGToN D.C. 20410
- OPFIC OF
k I 2 AIR P OISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
STJS3ECT: Guidance Concerning EPA’s Use of Continuous
Emission Monitoring Data
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Admjnjatrá or for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Directors, Air and Waste Management Divisions,
Regions II—IV, VI—VIlI, and X
Directors, Air Management Divisions,
Regions I, V and IX
This memorandum addresses EPA’s use of Continuous Emission
Monitoring (CEM) data in enforcement of SPS and SIP emission and
operating and maintenance (O&M) provisions and in other general EPA
activities. It provides guidance as to when, as a legal matter,
continuous emission monitoring constitutes the test method associ
with an emission limitation. It is not intended to preclude the
exercise of reasoned discretion by an enforcing agency based on a
review of the representativeness of the data and the circumstances
giving rise to the excess emissions.
Use of CElls that are Specified as the Source Compliance Test Method
In each instance where CElls have been promulgated or approved by
the Agency as an official method to determine source compliance with
the applicable emission limitations, the Agency can rely upon CEM daU
when making compliance determinations. CElls have been specifically
prescribed as the method to establish emission violations for one or
more pollutants in the following instances:
o NSPS electric utility steam generating units,
regulated by 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da;
o NSPS primary nonferrous smelters, regulated by
40 CFR Part 60 Subparts P, Q and R;
0 NSPS stationary gas turbines, regulated by 40
CFR Part 60 Subpart GG;
o various sources regulated by permits, orders, or consent
decrees in which CEll has been specifically designated as
the test method;

-------
—2—
various types of sources which are regulated by S ps
(e.g., Nevada sip, 40 CFR S52.]475(d)) where the tate
has Specified CEM as the test method,
Some sources object to EPA’s reliance upon CEM data to enforce sip
emisájon provisions for source categories for which EPA has not
specified the use of CEMS in comparable wsps regulations, Such an
objection is not legally supportable, since States have the right to
specify their own methods in their SIPS, even if they are different
from those imposed by EPA for NSPS sources, Section 1.0 of Appendix P
to 40 CFR Part 51 delineates that SIPs may specify that CEM data be
used ‘directly or indirectly for compliance determination 8 or any other
purpose deemed appropriate j the State.’ The Agency can rely upon CEM
data for compliance determinations whenever such methods are specified
in the EPA—approved sIp.
Use of CEMS in SIPs where an Emission Compliance Test Method is Not
pecified
There are some instances when SIPs do not specify a compliance
test method, When that occurs, the applicable regulation, 40 CFR
S52.12(c)(l), states that for the purpose of Federal enforcement:
‘sources subject to plan provisions which do not
specify a test procedure.., will, be tested by means
of the appropriate procedures and methods prescribed
in Part 60 of this chapter; unless otherwise specified
in this part.’
Generally, Part 60 does not specify CEM as the compliance test method
and therefore EPA cannot use CEM data to determine source compliance
with a SIP emission limitation. However, in accordance with
S52.12(c)(1), CEll data would be the applicable test method for the two
categories of sources for which it is the NSPS performance test method,
nonferrous smelters (as in Subparts P 1 0 and R); and stationary gas
turbines (as in Subpart GG).
The Agency shall rely upon CEM data to determine a source’s
compliance status with a SIP emission limit for smelters (for So 2 )
and for stationary gas turbines (for NOR). Since CEM is the only
compliance test method specified in Part 60 for these source
categories, CEM is clearly the ‘appropriate’ method under Part 60 for
purposes of 5S2.12(c)(l).
In addition, there is some ambiguity regarding the appropriate
procedures for fossil—fuel—fired steam generators prescribed in Part 60
because Part 60 contains two significantly different types of So 2 and
NO performance test methods. Specifically, Subpart D specifies

-------
—3—
Reference (stack teat) Methods 6 and 7 as the performance test methods
forS0 2 and Nox emissions, respectively. However, Subpart Da
epeç.if lea use of CEM data to determine compliance with the SO 2 arid
NO omission standards.
The Agency shall rely upon the performance test methods specjfje
in Subpart D (Reference Methods 6 and 7) to determine a source’s com-
pliance status with SIP SO 2 and NOx emission limits for fossil—
fuel—fired steam generators. For this category of sources, it is more
consistent with the development of the SIPs to use these methods since
they are the traditional compliance test methods for this source
category. (For new sources actually subject to Subpart Da, we would
not expect this issue to arise since new source permits should specif
the applicable test method.)
Use of CEM’s where State Regulations Contain Discretionary Authority z
to Compliance Test Methods
A problem in interpreting the SIP continually arises because most
SIPs specify test methods (often adopting EPA methods by reference) bu
also allow for discretionary acceptance of an equivalent’ or an
appropriate alternative by the State. Relying on such language
States have accepted CEM data as an adequate demonstration of corn
pliance and have used such data to determine the existence of a
violation.
Since EPA’s enforcement authority is guided by State regulations
specifically approved in the SIP, questions have been raised as to
whether EPA will independently apply State discretionary authority an
interpret what is reasonable as an equivalentu or alternatives
compliance test method, or, if not, whether EPA may follow the State’s
lead, if the State chooses to allow CEM as the test method.
The answer is that EPA will not independently exercise such
authority. Only when the State has exercised such authority to adopt
CEM as a test method and when the exercise of that authority has been
reflected in the SIP, will EPA use CEM as the test method.
Use of CEll Data for Determining Potential Operations and Maintenance
( O&M) Violations
NSPS regulations (40 CFR 60.11(d)) specify that at all times,
including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, owners and
operators shall, to the extent practicable, maintain arid operate any
affected facility including associated air pollution control equipment
in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice fc
minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operat
and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on informaL ri

-------
,1 .
available to the Administrator which may include, but is lot limited
to, monitoring results, opacity observations, review of operating and
maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source. Many SIP’s have
aimil’ar provisions requiring proper operation and maintenance. Use of
CEM data, while not necessarily conclusive, is a valid indicator of
compliance with requirements such as 560.11(d) and can be used as such.
Use of CEMs as a General Compliance Monitoring Tool
CEMs can provide the Agency with useful data for circumstances
other than those delineated above. For instance, CEM data can be used
to: (1) screen a source’s compliance status (with both emission
limitations and O&M requirements); (2) select which sources should be
inspected or compliance (stack) tested; (3) document the severity
(e.g., duration, magnitude and frequency) of a source’s excess
emissions; and (4) document that a compliance test was performed during
‘non—representatjve operating conditions.

-------
#““ Sr 4 .

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
‘ I o1
OFFICE OF
APR I I 1986 AIR AJ I RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Federally—Reportable Violations for
Stationary Air Sources
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR—443
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I — X
Attached is guidance on what constitutes a Federal—reportable
violation for stationary air sources. This guidance is the
culmination of an extended effort initiated in FY 1985 within
the Agency and with representatives of State and local air
agencies. This guidance should be implemented in FY 1987
through your State enforcement agreements or similar appropriate
vehicle. Once implemented, it should improve immeasureably
our understanding of, and ability to deal with, the problem
of assuring continuous compliance by stationary air sources.
Traditionally, compliance status information is reported
to EPA by States on a “snapshot” basis. This means the State
reports the compliance status of the source (based on the most
recent assessment) as of the end of the reporting period,
generally quarterly. Thus EPA would know the source’s com-
pliance status only as of the end of each reporting period.
It would not know of any changes in compliance status which
took place during the period not reflected by the status as
of the end of the period.
This was not a serious problem when the focus of the
compliance program was on obtaining initial compliance and
compliance status changed only infrequently. However, as the
focus has broadened to include maintaining continuous
compliance, the current method of reporting is inadequate.
For instance, a source could go in and out of compliance
multiple times within a reporting cycle due to poor operation
and maintenance practices. Yet, if it were in compliance at
the period’s end, under the snapshot approach the source
would be reported in CDS as being in compliance with no record
of the continuous compliance problems having occurred.

-------
—2—
This results in an understating of the true noncompliance
rate and makes it more difficult to assess and improve the
effectiveness of the program. It also tends to mask compliance
problems of intermittent violators, sometimes delaying assuring
that those sources are brought into continuous compliance.
The attached guidance addresses this problem by requiring
that information be provided on many violations which occur
and are resolved wholly within the reporting period. This
will significantly improve our understanding of the true
compliance picture for those sources and what actions are
being taken to resolve the violations.
This guidance was accepted by STAPPA at its March 18
Board of Directors meeting. It was not accepted by the ALAPCO
Board of Directors. However, given the fundamental importance
of improving the current system and the willingness of STAPPA
to accept the guidance, we believe it is important to implement
the guidance in FY 1987 as planned.
I think it is particularly important that the guidance ba
implemented in the spirit in which it is intended. Concerns
have been expressed about highly obtrusive Federal enforcement
actions and undue reporting burdens. To address these concerns,
I would like to provide the following guidance.
Where a newly—identified violation has already been
resolved at the time of reporting to EPA, an EPA enforcement
action would rarely be warranted. (Even under the timely and
appropriate response guidance, such violations would normally
be resolved before EPA issues a Notice of Violation.) If the
violation appears to be an isolated one, no EPA action is
warranted. If, however, the violation is part of a pattern
of such violations by the source, it is certainly appropriate
to raise the matter with the State or local agency and to
assure that action is taken to resolve the pattern of persistent
violations.
Relative to the reporting of information to EPA, this
guidance necessarily requires reporting of additional data to
PA for inclusion in the Compliance Data System (CDS). Such
data, once received, must be entered into CDS in a timely
manner. The guidance also recuires that certain additional
information about the violation be made readily available to
EPA upon request. This information should be requested only
when essential for a clearly—defined purpose and with full
sensitivity to the potential resource burdens information
requests create.

-------
—3—
I believe implementation of this guidance constitutes an
important milestone for our air compliance program. I look
forward to working with you and our State and local agency
colleagues in assuring its successful implementation in F? 1987.
Attachment

-------
GUIDANCE ON F’EDERALLY—RF PORTA}3LE VIOLATIONS
FOR STATIONARY AIR SOURCES
I NTRODUCTION
A basic objective of the Federal EPA’s air program is
to ensure national consistency in the interpretation and
implementation of the Clean Air Act. Nowhere is consistency
more critical than in the area of enforcement. The primary
enforcement responsibility of the Act clearly lies with the
States. l However, EPA has a well—defined and important role
as well.
The Agency is charged by the Act with assuring that State
programs enforcing State Implementation Plans and, where dele-
gated, NSPS and NESHAPS standards, are adequately and consis-
tently implemented and regulations enforced. This responsibility
has been met through various State program oversight activities
(NAAS), grant negotiations, and by requiring the reporting of
certain State compliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
The primary existing mechanism by which State actions are reported
to EPA is through the Compliance Data System (CDS). A continuing
problem with this oversight function is that while there is a
mechanism for tracking data on violations, EPA has never clearly
defined in national guidance what it considers to be a reportable
violation.
While a State agency’s legal obligation to enforce its
regulations is clear, some discretion exists on what viola-
tions should be reported, and when and how such violations are
to be reported. Such discretion generally allows the agency
to direct limited resources to areas of greatest need and to
respond more equitably to different types and magnitudes of
violations. However, it can also lead to excessively variable
practices on what to report as a violation arid when to report
it, resulting in unequal treatment of sources.
1/ “State” as used throughout this guidance also refers to local
— agencies where they have enforcement authority.

-------
—2—
All Regions have developed approaches in working with State
agencies on reporting of violations. However, in the absence of
national guidance, inconsistencies exist from Region to Region,
and State to State, regarding what constitutes a reportable vio-
lation, when and how it is entered in CDS, and what information
is necessary to support the reported violation. It is the intent
of this guidance to address the basis of these inconsistencies
and minimize their impact. It is not the intent of this guidance
to require compliance status information for purposes of the
Agency routinely overriding basic State enforcement responsibility
and decision making.
The task of developing the above mentioned national guidance
is divided into five basic issues:
o What is a Federally—reportable violation, i.e., which
violations does EPA want reported to it by the State?
o What specific information about reportable violations
does EPA require to effectively monitor the universe of
violating sources? How will the minimum information to be
reported on violators be transmitted to EPA?
o At what frequency must minimum information on violators
be reported to EPA?
o How will the compliance status of reported violators be
tracked?
o How will EPA use the information provided to it by the
State?
These issues are addressed in the following sections. They
deal only with State reporting of fundamental data about viola-
tors of Federally-enforceable air requirements. Por the ourposes
of this guidance, violators include significant violators as well
as all other violators that meet the criteria discussed below.
The scope of reporting and reporting procedures and frequency
required by this guidance do not supercede the monthly informal
consultations and monthly updating of CDS required for sources
subject to the “Guidance on ‘Timely and Appropriate’ EPA/State
Enforcement Response for Significant Air Violators”, dated June
1984.
REPORTABLE VIOLATION
The task here is not to establish what constitutes a
violation, but rather to assess whether a violation of a
Federally—enforceable requirement should be reported by the State
to EPA. That is, all detected violations are not of immediate
Federal concern. However, certain violations are. r ationa1
guidance that permits the States to make this distinction is
provided below.

-------
—3—
For a violation to be reportable to EPA, two conditions
must be met. First, the source must either be an NSPS or
NESHAPS facility or, if a SIP source (including those subject
to NSR and PSD regulations), be classified Al or A2 (by the EPA
definition of class).
Secondly, to he Federally—reportable, a violation must also
meet at least one of the following criteria 2/:
1. Any emissions or significant procedural violation of a
State consent decree, court order, or administrative
order, which was issued by the State to resolve a
Federally—enforceable violation.
2/ For the purpose of this guidance, specific terms used in
the above criteria are defined in the following manner:
o An emissions violation includes not only a violation of
numerical emissions limitations hut also violations of
other requirements that directly impact the amount of
allowable emissions, such as equipment standards, work
practice standards, and sulfur—in—fuel limitations.
o A significant procedural violation of a State consent
decree, court order, or administrative order includes
failure by the source to accomplish or maintain interim
emission reductions and failure to achieve interim incre-
ments of progress which jeopardizes the ability of the
source to meet the final compliance dates.
o A significant procedural NSPS violation includes such
source activities as Eailure to install a Continuous
Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) or other monitoring
equipment, failure to conduct timely performance tests,
and failure to conduct appropriate monitoring and associ-
ated recordkeeping. It does not include a failure to
report on time such activities as start of construction
or operation and late reporting of quarterly compliance
reports.
o A continuing violation (emission or significant procedural)
shall include violations which, while not necessarily
continuous for seven days (i.e., 168 or more hours),
reoccur regularly or intermittently, and have not been
adequately addressed or resolved by the source. A viola-
tion of this nature shall become reportable if it cannot
be or is not resolved within seven days after the enforce-
ment agency first becomes aware of the violation. Such a
violation is Federally—reportable even if a source is in
compliance on the last day of the reporting period, i.e.
at the time of the traditional static “snapshot.”
o A significant procedural SIP violation includes such source
activities as failure to install CEMS, failure to obtain
required permits (N SR and PSD), and the like.

-------
—4—
2. Any violation of a NESEIAPS requirement, emissions or
procedural.
3. Any emissions or significant procedural violation of an
NSPS requirement continuing for, or likely to continue
for, at least seven days.
4. Any emissions or significant procedural violation of a
Federally—approved or Federally-promulgated SIP require-
ment (including an NSR or PSD regulation) continuing for,
Qr likely to continue for, at least seven days.
Any violation determined through a Continuous Emission
Monitoring System (CEMS) or any other continuous monitoring
device or method, where such device or method is the official
emissions compliance test method prescribed by a Federally—
enforceable SIP, NSPS, or NESHAPS requirement, would be covered
by and reportable under one of the criteria specified above.
REPORTABLE VIOLATION DATA
In order for EPA to carry out its national program oversight
responsibility, the State must provide adequate information about
the reported violation and their enforcement position in a timely
fashion to assure EPA that the violation is being properly
addressed. Because this places a reporting burden on the State,
only essential information needed to satisfy the EPA oversight
mission will be required. A portion of these data, as discussed
later, will be tracked through CDS.
At a minimum, the following information, where applicable,
must be provided or made available to EPA for all reportable
violations. The information for items 1—3 must he reported to
EPA in all instances. Items 4—6 need not be regularly reported
to F PA, however, they must be made readily available upon EPA ’s
request.
1. Source and emission point identification data;
2. Nature of violation (i.e., pollutant and emissions
or procedural violation), location of violation
(i.e., point, process or unit), and the Federally—
enforceable regulation that has been violated;
3. Method and date of initial detection, e.g., stack test,
quarterly compliance report, inspection report, malfunc-
tion report;
4. Duration and rtagnitude if emissions violation;
5. Known/possible causes of violation, e.q., lack of
proper o&ri, emergency release; and
6. State enforcement position andctimeframe of expected
action.

-------
—5—
Once a source has been returned to compliance, the method of
compliance verification and the date of compliance achievement
must as well be reported in all instances to EPA according to
the same frequency as reporting violations.
If the Region receives copies of State inspection reports,
these may serve in lieu of the above—listed minimum information
if the State inspection reports provide sufficiently detailed
information, at the required reporting frequency, to permit EPA
to meet its mission as stated in this guidance.
The minimum information detailed for items 1—3 above should
be entered into CDS in a timely fashion. The information required
to be regularly reported or made available to EPA from States on
all reportable violations may be transmitted either by personal
coinniunications, manual reports, or through CflS. However, for
items 4 and 5, it will be sufficient if the information is made
available to EPA during an onsite visit if the State prefers.
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING
The information required by this guidance to be reported to
EPA must be reported on at least a quarterly basis. For newly
reported violators, the initial quarterly report should consist
of the minimum information discussed under the “Reportable
Violation Data” section, to the extent it is available at that
time. Subsequent quarterly reports should at least consist of
compliance status changes that occurred during the past quarter
All such information shall be reported to EPA not more than 45
calendar days after the close of the quarter the information
became known to the State.
METHODS OF COMPLIANCE TRACKING
The compliance status of reported violators will be tracked
in CDS by two procedures. One will he the traditional static
“snapshot” based on the most recently observed compliance assess-
ment of the source, generally meant to be the compliance status
of record as of the end of the quarterly reporting period. This
compliance status is defined to be the most recently confirmed
assessment of source compliance of Federally—regulated ørocesses,
emission points, or units for all Federally—regulated air
pollutants.
The second compliance indicator is intended to track the
performance record of such sources, i.e., a more continuous
assessment of compliance, insofar as that information is avail-
able to the enforcement agency. For instance, a source could

-------
—6—
go in and out of compliance multiple times within a quarter’s
reporting cycle. Yet, if it was in compliance at quarter’s end,,
under the snapshot approach, the source would be reported in CDS
as being in compliance with no record of the continuous compliance
problems having occurred. A great deal of valuable informatibn
about a source’s operational characteristics, and difficulties,
is lost using such traditional static compliance reporting
methods. In addition, a static assessment of compliance does
not lend itself to an evaluation of truly representative operat-
ing conditions when a physical site visit is made, nor does it
encourage source practices that maintain compliance on a more
continuous basis.
To accommodate this second assessment procedure, a
continuous compliance status indicator code will be entered in
CDS. With the addition of such an indicator, not only will we
know a source’s static compliance status, but we will as well
know its compliance picture during the reporting period even
though its static compliance status may not indicate a violation
at quarter’s end. The actual form, mechanics, and schedule of
COS modifications necessary to monitor the continuous compliance
history of sources will follow in more detailed guidance at a
later date. However, the concept is to enable agencies to more
effectively monitor the Continuous compliance practices of
problem sources.
EPA USE OF DATA
EPA has a bonafide mission of national program oversight.
The type and amount of information EPA is requiring the State to
provide about reportable violations through this guidance is
necessary to achieve that mission. More specifically, EPA will
use these data to:
1. Maintain a nationally consistent and uniform Federal!
State compliance program;
2. Assess the State’s ability to implement and enforce
compliance with the Act;
3. Identify the national air compliance program’s strengths
and weaknesses, and improve the program in areas where
the data indicate a need;
4. 1)etermine what is a “realistic” noncompliance rate; and
5. Provide EPA Regions with more detailed background data
for monthly conferences with their States.

-------
PN 11i— ib-U4-11-U?8
ST 41
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4 L pqØlt
OFFICE OF
APR 11 t 6 AIR AND RADIATION
MEMOF \NDUM
SUBJECT: Timely and Appropriate Enforcc : ent Response Guidance
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator ,/ 4c<
for Air and Radiation (ANR—443)
TO: Regional A -5ministrators
Regions I — X
Attached is revised guidance on timely and appropriate
enfor ement response for significant air violators, This
guidance should be used in your negotiation of State enforcement
agreements for FY 1987.
The only substantive change to the current guidance made
by the revision is to extend the coverage to include NESHAPs
sources. NESHAP violators were not initially covered because
it was felt that the 120—day timeline for resolution of suqh
violations was too long. However, by not including NESHAPS
violators, they were not covered by the mandatory penalty
provision or the monthly consultation provisions of the national
guidance (although many State enforcement agreements extended
such provisions to NESHAPS violators.) To remedy this,
starting in FY 1987, NESHAPs sources will be subject to the
penalty, data transfer, and consultation requirements of the
guidance but not the timeline. The timeline will continue
to inapplicable since, as indicated in the guidance,
action against NESu ;ps sources should proceed more quickly
than the timeline would permit.
This change was accepted by STAPPA and ALAPCO at their
mid—winter meetings in Jackson, Wyoming. It should improve
both the consistency and the effectiveness of our compliance
:ogram. If you have any questions about interpretation or
implementation of the guidance, please call Ed Reich, Director,
Stationary Source Como’..iance Division, at 382-2807.
Attachment

-------
April 1986
GUIDANCE ON TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE STATE/EPA ENFORCEMENT
RESPONSES FOR SIGNIFICANT AIR POLLUTION VIOLATORS
I. Scope of Guidance
A.l. It is assumed that States* will address any violations
of air pollution regulations within their jurisdictions
(except for non—delegated Federal standards). By
focusing on a limited group of violators for purposes
of this guidance, it is not intended to detract from
the importance of addressing other violators and the
right and responsibilities of the States and EPA for
doing so.
2. This guidance is an initial step towards clarifying
mutual expectations of the respective parties of the
Federal—State partnership in the enforcement of air
pollution control requirements for statioriary sources.
It is fuUy expected that it will he modified and
expanded in future years to reflect experiences in
its initial implementation and the evolution of the
air program itself.
3. In accordance with the Deputy Administrator’s
memorandum of April 9, 1984 on Forgir.g an Effective
State/Federal Enforcement Relationship, this national
guidance will serve as the framework for state—
specific aareements reflecting the parties’ mutual
expectations. s that memorandum states, “ [ t)he
Reqions will have to accommodate differences among
States, for example, where their administrative
procedures recjuire different timelines for enforce-
ment action.”
B.l. This guIdance applies to the following classes of
significant violators:
(a) Class A SIP violators in nonattainrnent areas
in violation for the pollutant for which the
area is nonattainrnent, and
* “State” as used throughout this paper also refers to local
agencies where they have enforcement authority.

-------
—2—
(b) NSPS violators (where delegated) and sources
operating in violation of Part C (PSD) and
Part D (nonattainment areas) permit requirements.
(C) NESHAPS violators (where delegated). However,
the timeline and NOV provisions in Sections II
and III are inapplicable to NESHAPs violations
since action against such sources must proceed
more quickly than the timelines would permit.
2. This guidance does not apply to emergency episodes
or sources constructing without a valid PSD or
Part D permit where required (or in violation of
such a permit). In the case of emergency episodes,
the seriousness of the violation would normally
require expedited action. In the case of a source
constructing withou€ a required so or Part I)
permit or in violation of a permit, Options for
obtaining relief may be foreclosed oy allowing the
source to continue to construct and, therefore,
expedited action may he essential.
II. Timelines for Enforcement Action
A.l. The clock starts (i.e., day zero) 30 days after
the date of the inspection or receipt of a source
self—monitoring report which first identifies the
violation. This provides sufficient time for an
evaluation of the inspection or source report data
to determine if a violation exists. If, during
this 30—day period, the State determines that a
stack test or a sample analysis is required to
determine or confirm the violation, the clock does
not start until the date of receipt of the stack
test or sample analysis report.
2. Any serious problems occurring earlier in the
process would be identified and addressed in the
National Air Audit System process rather than
under these tirneljnes,
B. By day 45, the source should he notified of the
violat )n and its need to remedy it by the State
in writ n. or in a docunerited conversation (in any
form the t te feels is appropriate).
C. By day 120, the source shall either be in compliance,
on a l -i lly—eriForceab1e expeditious State administra-
tive or j’ ’iicia1 order, be subject to a referral to

-------
—3—
the State attorney general or for a State
adjudicatory enforcement hearing, or be subject to
a proposed sip revision which has at least been
scheduled for a State hearing and which EPA staff—
level review shows is likely to be approved. For
cases where penalties are required (see IV below),
penalties must also be addressed as part of the
State action if it is to he sufficient to obviate
further EPA action.
D. If a schedule is establis’- ed, the State will
monitor compliance with that schedule and report
on progress in accordance with established report-
ing requirements. If a referral is made, EPA will
continue to monitor the progress of the case to
and after filing. If a SIP revision is initiated,
EPA will rnr,nitor the proqress of the revision
through the State administrative process. If a
case or SIP revision becomes unduly delayed, EPA
il1 dj cuss this with the State and may choose to
ilitiate a oarallel Ferieral action. ‘o formal
•tii eljnes are being established for this stage of
the enforcement process, however.
E. If none of the actions specified in C. have occurred
by day 120, EPA will disctjss with the State the
status of the State’s actions and its expectations.
If with the State suggest that the
State is close to resolving the violation or that
further deferral is otherwise aooro ,rjate, EPA
will continue to defer to enable the State to
complete its action, if EPA determines that
further deferral is not justified, it will proceed
with its own action at this point.
F. When EPA takes the lead in a case, it will act to
get t source in compliance, on a schedule, or
subject to a Section 120 action or judicial referral
within 120 days of its assumption of the lead. EPA
will encourage continued State participation even
where EPA takes the lead. The POSSibility of a
joint action should be considered as an alternative
to a unilateral EPA action where feasible.
III. Issuance of OVs by EPA .
A. At day 90, EPA (after consultation with the State
on the progress of the case to date) may take one
of the following actions as circumstances dictate:
(a) Initiate case development activities through
an inspection or issuance of a Section 114
letter. (This will he less likely to be

-------
—4—
required if the State provides sufficient
documentation to support an NOV 1 as provided
in II.C.)
(b) advise the source that EP will issue an NOV
in 30 days if the source does not reach an
•acceptable resolution with the State before
then. (This should be used only where such an
action by EPA is likely to be of siqnifica
value in prompting the source to reach an
acceptable agreement with the State).
Cc) issue the NOV , if requested by the State or if
it is clear that a resolution will not be
reached by the State by day 120 and that the
envirDnmental significance of the source
warrants EPA action at this point.
B. EPA will routinely issue N OVs, if not already
issued, on (or shortly after) day 120 if the
vi 1atjons re still unreso1v. d at that point.
This is not intended as a criticism of the State
action hut only as expression of EPA concern to
reinforce State efforts and as a necessary legal
prerequisite to further EPA action. (NSPS sources
will receive letters of violation rather than NOVs).
C. Any IOV issued on day 120 will he issued only after
consultation with the State. If there is some
particularly compe].1jn reason why the NOV should
not be issued to a source at day 120, EPA will
defer its issuance but this is not expected to be
the case in the vast majority of cases. EPk will
rely wherever possible on information provided by
the State according to mutually—agreed upon
procedures.
D. In addition, EPA may immediately issue an NOV to
any source subject to this guidance where’ t finds
the violation rather than the State. (This would
not apply to violations discovered in joint inspec-
tions.) However, Prior to a decision on issuance
of the ‘ JOV, FPk will discuss with the State the
circumstances of the violation and ascertain the
reason w’hy the violation had not been reported by
the State. EP will also resolve in crnsultatjon
with the St3te who will take the lead for the source
and the nature and timing of follow—up action.

-------
—5—
E. Any NOV issued in a case where the State still has
the lead will indicate that EPA is still looking to
the State to resolve the matter and further EPA
action will be required only in the absence of an
acceptable, prompt resolution by the State.
F. EPA will transmit a copy of all NOVs it issues to
the State in whose jurisdiction the source is
located. If the violation clearly impacts upon the
air quality of an adjacent State, EPA will transmit
of a copy of the NOV to the State as well.
IV. Penalties
A cash penalty of sufficient mac7nitude appropriate to the
violation is required as an element of the resolution of
the following classes of violations. If the penalty is
not obtained by the State, an EPA action will be brought.
If the State believes it can obtain a compliance schedule
but not the oenalty, a joint action could be appropriate.
The classes of violations subject to this guidance for
which an appropriate cash penalty is required are:
(a) Class A SIP violators in nonattajnment areas in
violation for the pollutant for which the area
is nonattain’nent unless on an EPA—aporoved DCC)
or subject to an approvable SIP revision;
(b) Sources which violate Part D, PSP, and NSPS
requirements after the date the source was
required to demonstrate compliance. (This
would not apply during periods which the regula-
tions or permit specifically provide for “debug-
ging” prior to demonstration of compliance,
such as the 180—day start—up period for SPS
sources provided for in 40 CFR Section 60.8);
(C) Violators of NESHAPs requirements;
(d) Sources which violate State or Federal
administrative or judicial schedules, thus
requiring an extension of the final compliance
date;
(e) Violitors which the State or EPA determines are
repeat violators.
This requirement would not be applicable to de rninimis
violations or violations arising from force majeure
circumstances.

-------
—6—
V. Consultation and Data Transfer
A. EPA and States would initiate or continue at least
monthly informal consultations to discuss compliance
efforts. During these discussions, information
exchange relative to obtaining compliance and
penalties would occur. This eKchange would include
at’ least the following items.
(a) The State would identify any newly—found
violators subject to this guidance.
(b) The State would identify sources notified of
noncompliance during the month Consistent with
Section II.B.
(C) The State would, identify violators where action
had been taken, consistent with Section ii.c.,
includin penalties where required by Section Iv.
(d) The State would discuss the status of other
enforcetierit actions pending or in progress if
requested by EPA.
(e) EPA would identify sources for which it had
completed action and provide the status for
other sources where action is pending or in
pro3ress.
(f) EPA would identify any sources it had found in
violation and confer with the State in accordance
with IIt.r).
B. The CDS would he updated by EPA and/or the State on
a monthly basis to reflect:
(a) Compliance status changes for newly—identified
violators which are in violation on the last
day of the month prior to the consultation and
which were (or are expected to be) in that status
for 7 days or more.
(b) Sources notifjed of noncompliance.
(c) Sources with completed enforcement actions,
including any schedules and incremental dates
for returning to compliance.
Cd) Sources found to be in compliance with final
limits.

-------
—7—
C. Inspection results other than those affected by the
above will be provided in accordance with current
practices and EPA accountability system requirements.
D. EPA and the State will share inspection results and
monitoring reports for use in enforcement Proceedings
to the extent practicable. State personnel should
be ncouraqed to provide evidence, including testimony,
for Federal proceedings. Federal personnel should
similarly support State enforcement Proceedings.
S

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
p (,

JAN I 71986
OFFICI’OF F .FORCEM T
A ) CO IPt J,%’CE
MO I I OR I\G
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Issues #3(e) and #5 of the VOC Issue Resolution
Process: Establishing Proof of VOC Emissions
Violations, and Bubbles in Consent Decrees
Resolving Civil Actions Under Section 113(b)
of the Clean Air A t
FROM: Courtney M. Price 4a. _4_ J
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division
Directors,
Region IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
In the attached memoranda, i am answering two questions
that YOU identified as important issues in our Clean Air Act
enforcement effort to reduce emissions of volatile organic
Compounds (“voc”). Specifically, this guidance responds to
issues #3(e), and #5 of the nineteen issues listed in a
May 20, 1985 memorandum titled “Results of May 3 VOC
meeting.”
The issues addressed by this guidance concern how to
establish proof of VOC emission violations (issue #3(e)) and
the relationship between pending or potential bubble appli-
cations and consent decrees (issue 5). The main theme of
the guidance on issue #3(e) is to encourage the use of Section
114 of the Clean Air Act to obtain information where data is
not otherwise available to prove violations under the appli-
cable test method. The principle point of the guidance on
issue #5 is to emphasize that the current SIP governs until
any amendments are federally effective.

-------
—2—
This guidance is part of an Agency-wide effort to address
VOC enforcement issues and should be considered in conjunction
with the responses to the other VOC issues, which will be dis-
tributed by the responsible EPA offices as they are developed.
One major coirunent regarding issue 3(e) was repeated by
several commentors during the second round of review and is
worth mentioning briefly here. The comments suggested that
rather than attempting to fix recordkeeping problems through
§114 requests, EPA should work towards incorporating better
recordkeeping requirements in the state implementation plans.
For example, EPA. could issue SIP deficiency notices where
the SIP does not provide for recordkeeping requirements
adequate to determine if the source is in compliance with
the SIP.
Our response to issue 3(e) is designed to deal with
those interim problems concerning recordiceeping which arise
prior to the resolution of the more fundamental concern of
poorly drafted SIP recordkeeping requirements. The issue
of how to improve the SIP’s is being addressed by the Control
Programs Development Division. The attached guidance is
intended to advise you of the tools available to obtain
better evidence of violations, and my office’s policy con-
cerning the use of those tools, until such time as they may
become unnecessary because of corrective SIP revisions.
I appreciate the efforts of the Regions in commenting
on the various drafts of the two following documents and
hope that you find them helpful in resolving some of the
issues concerning VOC enforce nent.
Attachments

-------
ISSUE NUMBER 3(e) : Flow are VOC emissions to be calculatec1
over a chosen averagin j time when a company is not requtred
to, or does not, maintain records directly pertinent to that
unit of time?
RESPONSE : This issue is presented when the period for asses-
sing compliance under the SIP with the VOC emission limitation
(e.g., a source must meet a percent VOC limitation over a 24
hour period or instantaneously) does not correspond to the
records maintained by the source (e.g., records of VOC usage
are kept by the source only on a monthly basis). The issue
is also presented in other contexts. For example, a SIP may
require line—by-line compliance while the source records are
maintained only on a plant wide basis. The issue is important
because compliance determinations for many types of VOC sources
rely upon the records of VOC usage kept by the individual
company.
Where the SIP itself requires records to be maintained
that correspond to the SIP emission limitations, corrective
action can be taken under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act
to require the source to keep the proper records. This action
can consist of the issuance of an administrative order under
Section 113(a), or the initiation of a judicial action under
113(b) . The remainder of this emorandun addresses the situa-
tion where the SIP does not cont. in such a record keeping
requirement.
There are four recommended techniques available to
determine source compliance with VOC SIP emission limitations
in the absence of a SIP record keeping requirement for source
records which correspond to the SIP emission limitations.
These four different techniques are primarily useful in four
different contexts.
The first technique consists of the use of mathematical
algorithms. A description of two different types of available
algorithms is attached (attachment 1). Both apply various
mathematical computations to monthly or yearly data to pro-
duce a figure representing the minimum number of days that
a source had to be out of compliance with the SIP emission
limit. This calculation is statistically based and does not
identify the particular days that a source was in violation.
Use of the algorithms may be helpful in settlement discus-
sions with the source and in Jetermining a settlement penalty.
Use of the results of the algorithms in a different
context, to prove violations at a trial or hearing, presents
several issues. Defendants can be expected to argue that the
Government may prove violations only through the use of the
appropriate test method, which would be the method specified

-------
—2—
in the federally—approved sip, or if there is none, the
appropriate EPA test. method in 40 CFR Part 60 (see 40 CFR
§52.12(c)). To Overcome this point, the Government would
have to argue that violations can also be proven through
expert opinion testimony under the Federal Rules of Evidence,
Rule 702 (Testimony by Experts), 703 (Basis of Opinion
Testimony by Experts), and 704 (Opinion on Ultimate Issue).
In order to use the results of the algorithms as evidence
of violations at a trial, the Government should be prepared
to prove the statistical validity of the algorithms through
expert testimony, and to show through the opinion of an
expert, based upon the results of the algorithms, that the
source had to be in violation for a given number of days.
The Government would not be able to prove precisely which
days a company was out of compliance nor which lines (or
how many lines) were out of compliance. The Government
would be able to show, based on the source’s total VOC
output and the restrictions provided in SIP, that at least
one of the lines at the source as Out of compliance for a
certain mininv -I period of time. Sole reliance on a1gorit’.m s
has the negative effect of calculating violations on an
averaging basis in what may be the absence of any SIP
provision authorizing averaging.
Because of these potential issues of proof and the
effect of averaging out some violations by using algorithms,
steps should be taken to obtain the data necessary to calcu-
late emissions under the applicable test method. Thus, the
second recommended technique to determine source VOC corTipli-
ance is to use Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to request
currently existing source records which can be used to
develop the data necessary to make compliance determinations
under the applicable test method. Items such as sales slips,
invoices, production records, solvent orders, etc., may be
available and useful in developing the necessary data for
the test method calculations. Once a case has been filed
discovery can also be used to supplement the information
obtained under Section 114.
The third recommended technique to determine source VOC
current and future compliance is the issuance of a request
under Section 114 requiring the source to prospectively keep
the necessary records. This technique is the most straight-
forward of the three and the one that should generally be
pursued. it may be the only option in the case where sources
have not kept records in a form which can be used, directly
or indirectly, to determine compliance under the applicable
test. method. it nay also be the only realistic option where
the use of existing records to develop the necessary data for
the test method calculations would be unduly time—consuming
and burdensome for the Agency.

-------
—3—
Under the authority of Section 114. EPA may require a
source to establish and maintain records reasonably required
to determine compliance with the SIP (Section 114(a)(l)(A)
and (B)). By issuing such a request, EPA would impose an
obligation on a source to keep and maintain those records
which are necessary to calculate compliance determinatior s
unler the applicible test method. The requested record
keeping should be in a format consistent with the SIP emis-
sion requirements. Thus, if the SIP requires compliance on
a line—by-line basis and on a 24 hour average, the records
should be kept on the basis of individual lines using no
more than 24 hour averaging. Also, the required measurements
as to VOC content should be consistent with applicable EPA
test methods. For example, EPA should require in the
Section 114 request that data on the VOC content of a
particular coating or ink is produced through a measuring
process identical to EPA’s method 24 or 24 A in 40 C.F.R.
§60 App. A.
As a fourth technique, Section 114 may also be used to
require a source to sample emissions in accordance with the
methods prescribed by EPA (Section 114(a)(l)(D)). Thus,
Section 114 may be used to require a source to conduct an
emissions test in accordance with the applicable test
methods. This type of Section 114 request would probably
be the most appropriate where compliance determinations are
made on the basis of emissions testing as opposed to an
analysis of the VOC content of the individual coatings
used. In certain situations where it is unclear whether
the coating or ink supplier is using proper test methods,
EPA may want to require the user of those coatings to run
tests for VOC content using EPA’s approved test methods.
In conclusion, algorithms exist and are available to
estimate the minimum number of days a company was Out of
compliance with SIp VOC emission limitations in the absence
of company records which are necessary to make compliance
determinations under the applicable test method. The results
of the algorithms are primarily useful for purposes of settle-
ment discussions or for identifying sources which should be
required to submit information under §114. While this guid-
ance does not preclude using algorithms and expert opinion
testimony to prove violations at a trial, the Government
Should be prepared to prove at least some days of violation
throug1 the applicable test method in the event that expert
Opinion evidence is rejected by the judge. The records
necessary to develop this proof under the applicable test
method can be sought through a Section 114 request for
information where the company has data which can be used

-------
—4—
to develop the necessary records. Such records can also
be developed on a prospective basis through a requirement
imposed under the authority of Section 114 requiring the
source to maintain the necessary records. Finally, Section
114 can also be used to require source testing of emissions.
Future litigation reports based upon VOC SIP emission
limitation violations should, if at all possible, either
contain proof of violations using the applicable test method
covering at least part of the period of time the source is
alleged to be in violation of the emission limitation or
should contain a cause of action based upon a source’s failure
to comply with a previous request issued under Section 114
for source records or testing. Prior to the referral of a
report, the authority granted EPA under Section 114 should
be used, where necessary, to obtain the data needed to esta-
blish some days of violation under the applicable test method.
Through the use of Section 114, the Government should either
have the evidence needed to prove specific violations, or,
if a source fails to comply with the Section 114 request, a
basis to proceed under Section 1l3(h)(4) for violation of
Section 114. Litigation reports relying solely upon
algorithms to evidence violations are appropriate only if,
after diligent effort to obtain more detailed data, stati-
stical proof through the use of algorithms remains the only
availabLe technique.
If you have any questions concerning this guidance,
please contact Burton Gray at FTS 392—2868.
7-
-
Courtney M. Price
Assistant Administrator
JAN I 7

-------
I 7 j2ee-ka5
/4I —.
Er fYy

-------
MAR 3 I i 8
Attachment 2
Inspection Frequency Guidance
I1 4TRODUCTION
The inspection Is the primary compliance assurance method presently
available in the air program for validating source performance. Therefore,
EPA believes It is Imperative that an effective Inspection program be
implemented in all States. The following guidance on the expected frequency
of Inspections Is intended to balance the need for a nationally-uniform data
base to enable an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program with the
needs of State and local agencies to make optimal use of their limited
resources to address the varied and unique air quality problems faced by each
State and locality.
CRITERIA FOR INSPECTION
The frequency of an inspection shall be determined by which requirements
are applicable (SIP. NSPS. NESHAPs) and, for SIP and NSPS sources. by
whether the source is a Class Al or A2 source. In cases where more than one
program requirement is applicable, the source must be inspected based on
the highest frequency of inspection for any of the applicable requirements. It
is imperative that all sources be identified by source classification (if
applicable) and appropriate air program (SIP. NSPS. NESHAPs) and that
these data be duly entered and maintained in EPA’s Compliance Data System
(CDS).
DEFINITION OF AN INSPECTION
For the purpose of this guidance. a minimally-acceptable State or local
compliance inspection (Level II) is an onsite visit to the operating source to
assess compliance with at least applicable federal air pollution control
requirements. At a minimum, a compliance inspection must be performed for
all federally-regulated air pollutants emitted by the source. Also, a source that
Is regulated for visible emissions should be evaluated using an acceptable
reference method. Where a source is federally-regulated for more than
opacity, a compliance inspection involving only a visible emissions observation
Is not generally considered to be a minimally-acceptable compliance
Inspection.
As part of the minimally-acceptable source compliance inspection. an
inspector must record the process operating conditions and, if appropriate.
the control device conditions to determine if any significant change has
occurred since the last Inspection or any process or control operation outsIde
normal or permitted conditions has occurred. It is expected that
minimally-acceptable compliance inspections would also include at least an
operations log check of process and control equipment Including continuous
emission monitoring systems logs. It should be noted that these
requirements for a minimally-acceptable inspection do not require the direct
measurement of operating conditions by the Inspector. -
1

-------
CLASS Al SIP SOURC S
All operating Class isI SIP sources regulated under the Clean Air Act shall
be inspected annually. .Annually is construed to mean at least one onsite visit
is made to each such source between October and September, corresponding
to the federal fiscal year.
There are four permissible exceptions to the Class Al annual Inspection
requirement. The first Is for sources whose operations are seasonal in nature
(e.g., alfalfa dehydrators) and which do not operate more than 90 days per
year. This operating time restriction does not need to be included In a permit
for a source to qual1f r. However, the nature of Its business should clearly
preclude the source from operating more than 90 days per year. To qualify
for this exception, a seasonal source should be well-controlled, should not
have a history of noncompliance, and should not be located In a
nonattainment area for a pollutant that is the determining pollutant for the
Class Al classification. AU seasonal sources must In any event be inspected at
least once every five years.
The second category is for Class Al SIP gas-fired combustion facilities (gas
turbines, boilers, and Internal combustion sources) which are regulated only
for sulfur dioxide emissions arid which can operate In compliance with the
sulfur dioxide emissions limitations without controls.
The third category is Class Al NSPS and PSD gas turbines that are
regulated only for NOx emissions. An annual compliance determination for
these sources can be accomplished through record checks without an annual
onsite Inspection of equipment.
The last category Is oil-fired or coal-fired Industrial boilers which are Class
Al SIP sources only because of their sulfur dioxide emissions and which can
operate in compliance with the sulfur dioxide emission limitations without
either controls or use of low sulfur fuel.
To be excepted, sources in these latter three categories should not have a
history of noncompliance. All excepted sources shall be inspected at least
once every five years.
Exceptions to the annual inspection requirement should be communicated
by the Regional Office to EPAs Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)
at the start of the inspection year and the data base properly adjusted by the
Regional Offices for subsequent analysis and reporting. Regional Offices are
encouraged to discuss with SSCD any novel issues which may arise In their
discussions with their States.
CLASS A2 SIP SOURCES
Except as noted below, operating Class A2 sources regulated under the
Clean Air Act shall be Inspected biennially. However, a State may propose a
modified inspection scheme to its EPA Regional Office which presents at least
the same level of resource commitment but which the State belieyes is more
2’

-------
responsive to the needs of Its air quality program. This can consist of any
combination of additional Class Al SIP Inspections. Class A2 SIP Inspections,
and Inspections of other sources regulated under the Clean Air Act. This
could Include Class B SIP sources in those areas where they are particularly
significant EPA Regional Offices and their States are free to establish
whatever approach is best suited to their situation as long as the following
conditions are met:
- SSCD must receive information copies of such agreements at the start of
fiscal year.
- The State must demonstrate that the modified approach is based on at
least the same resource expenditures as would be required to inspect all
Class A2 SIP sources on a biennial basis.
- All operating Class A2 SIP sources must be inspected at least once every
five years.
NSPS SOURCES
Any operating NSPS-subject source which is Class Al In size shall be
inspected at least once every federal fiscal year. AU other NSPS sources shall
be treated as Class A2 sources.
NESH.APs SOURCES
All operating nontrarisitory NESHAP-subject sources shall be inspected at
least once every federal fIscal year.
ALTERNATIVES TO CONDUCTING PERIODIC ONSITE INSPECTIONS
An alternative to an onsite visit for purposes of satisfying inspection
frequency guidance by the State for any SIP or NSPS source is the use of
continuous emission monit ring Excess Emission Reporting (EER) on a
quarterly basis In lieu of p clic inspection requirements. An EER is a
suitable alternative to an n ..te Inspection if EER data from the source is at
least equivalent to the lnfori:..tuon that could be obtained from a
minimally-acceptable inspe t n as previously defined. EER data must be
submitted for all pollutants nutted by the source for which the source is
regulated. The intended US’ ‘it the EER alternative must be agreed upon
between the State and the EL\ Regional Office and EPA must receive the
name and CDS numbers of all sources covered by the alternative.
Another alternative to an onsite inspection is available for sources whose
compliance is based solely on the characteristics of the fuel oil burned
(typically percentage of sulfur in the fuel). This alternative is an inspection of
the fuel oil suppliers records and a sampling of the supplier’s product. To
realize the saving of inspector time, a sources fuel oil suppliers must be
known arid fixed over time. If a source purchases fuel oil from the spot
market, has many suppliers. orhas suppliers which are not easily monitored
by the State, this alternative may not be appropriate.
3

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 114
(VCLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 114
* PN114—88—03—31—006
COMPLIANCE MONITORING STRATEGY FOR FY 89

-------
PN 114-88—03-31-006
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT.. L PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH GTO , D.C. 20460

v’jp fi 3 I I?S
o,, a Of
*J& AND U.ADIATION
M EMORANDtJM
SUBJECT: Compliance Monitoring Strategy for FT 89
FROM: John S. Seitz, Direct
Stationary Source Comp. ion
Office of Air Quality Planning and Stai
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air’ and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxjcs Djvj j Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
I am transmitting to you the attached Compliance Monitoring
Strategy (CMS) for Implementation in FT 89. This ‘strategy is
the culmination of a multi—year effort that focused on addressing
some very important issues of the Air compliance program.
feel the CMS makes major strides in guiding our surveillance
activities in a direction that will dramatically improve the
program.
As you know, the Compliance Monitoring Strategy will
replace the Inspection Frequency Guidance (IFG) in FT 89.
The CMS emphasizes flexibility with accountability. This
strategy recommends developing a comprehensive inspection
plan that identifies all Sources or source categories
committed to be inspected by the State agency (means State
or local agency throughout) during their fiscal year.

-------
—2—
The State inspection plan must address national priorities
and may also include inspections not normally of EPA concern.
The plan, to fully utilize the flexibility offered, will be
organized around four groups of sources.
Group I: Traditional stationary sources such as Class A
and known Class B SIP, NSPS, and operating
NESHAPS sources.
Group II: Asbestos D&R Strategy contractors.
Group III: Small VOC Compliance Strategy sources.
Group IV : Sources of State concern.
High Points of the New Strategy
New features of the Compliance Monitoring Strategy are
the following.
(1) Ability to address local air pollution concerns.
The CMS provides State agencies with the discretion to
address significant local air pollution concerns such as
citizen complaints, odor problems, and other localized toxic,
hazardous, and nuisance issues. These types of concerns may
not be national priorities, but are legitimate resource
expenditures under this strategy. Group IV is where loca’
issues and new State—specific initiatives may be addressed.
(2) Use of inspection targeting.
The concept of inspection targeting provides an approach
to systemically direct resources toward the most significant
problems. The approach employed is a PC-based model using
multiple targeting criteria to determine inspection frequency.
The targeting model accepts source specific targeting data
supplied by the State inspector in such areas as plant emis-
sions, compliance information, and air quality factors. The
model assigns values to these data, and mathematically combines
the values to produce a ranking of sources to be inspected
along with the estimated resource costs.

-------
—3—
(3) Account for the total inspection activity.
This strategy will credit a program for its total inspec-
tion activity. The total State inspection resource budget
must be provided to EPA for this key aspect to be accomplished
effectively.
(4) Maintain minimum resource expenditure levels in the
inspection program.
Minimum resource expenditure levels for Group I sources
are defined to be the average inspection effort over the last
three years. The levels for Group It asbestos D&R contractors
are those reported in the SPMS for the latest fiscal year.
Group III resource levels are the minimum number of inspections
required by the Small VOC Source Compliance Strategy or
supplied by the State, whichever is larger. Group IV levels
are generally supplied by the State.
5) Focus on national priorities.
Each year the Compliance Monitoring Strategy will reflect
the Air program’s stated national priorities as identified in
EPA’S Operating Year Guidance. These national priorities are
encompassed by Groups I, II, and III.
Comments
The responses I reviewed from both State and EPA personnel
were universally supportive of the general approach in the
CMS. I thank you for your time. The kinds of concerns expressed
typically revolved around the following issues.
1. Targeting model i ut data may not be known by the
inspector.
Since the model’s input is often qualitative and is so
critical to effective urce compliance understanding, the
lack of such data is a key finding. In addition, experience
has shown that such a ;tructured model helps guide an inspector
toward th. needed data to carry out effective source inspections
and provides supervisors with valuable management
control information.

-------
—4-
2. More resources (Regional and State) will be needed to
implement the CMS with targeting.
Our experience has shown that initially more time is
required to establish the source Inventory, to develop
a working database, and to negotiate a plan. However, the
initial resource commitment is very dependent upon the current
condition of an agency’s database. Thereafter, the resource
burden is greatly reduced.
Given a principal aim of targeting is to be a more focused
use of scarce resources, targeting over time, is expected to
realize a resource savings. A program using tar.geting
should find and correct more problems than a program that
does not. Therefore, resources may actually go further
because of more effective use.
3. The Inspection Frequency Guidance (IFG) should remain an
option.
We recognize In some cases, as mentioned in the CMS, the
current IFG will be a more viable means for States to meet
their inspection commitments. Therefore, the IFG is the
alternate approach. However, we strongly encourage the use
of the CMS with targeting whenever possible. To further
promote the CMS, we intend to monitor, in which States and for
what reasons, the CMS is not used.
One final observation, after reviewing the comments I
found a more comprehensive reading of the strategy should
answer any remaining questions. it became apparent that
inadequate attention was given to reviewing the strategy
because so many questions and comments were already answered
in the draft CMS. I will be happy to discuss with anyone
issues associated with implementing and interpreting the CMS,
but please read it carefully first.
Next Step !
SSCD has arranged to conduct Regional training (States
may be invited as well) in the use of the inspection targeting
model and provide on—call technical support. Please contact
Howard Wright at FTS 475—7034 to schedule training. To
effectively coordinate ten Regions training, Mr. wright would
like to know what Regional dates are suitable for this one
day training session. Please notify him of your preferred
dates by April 22, 1988.

-------
—5—
The diskitte containing the model along with the
Description and Explanation document will be distributed at
the traininq sessions. For technical support in the model’s
operation, please contact Perrin Quarles Associates, Inc. at
804—979—3700.
Attachment
cc: Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI and IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs•
Regions I, VII, VIII and X

-------
R3I $
Compliance Monitoring Strategy
Introduction
The Inspection Frequency Guidance (IFG) will be replaced In F? 1989 by
the Compliance Monitoring Strategy (CMS), which provides a more flexible
approach for determining State 1 Inspection commitments. The CMS
emphasizes flexibility with accountability. This strategy recommends the
development of a comprehensive inspection plan that identifies all sources
or source categories committed to be inspected by the State agency during
their fiscal year.
Strategy Components
The CMS has five parts.
(1) ObJectives
The Compliance Monitoring Strategy has five objectives.
- To provide the ability to address significant local
concerns where they differ from national priorities.
- To ensure effective national oversight of the air
compliance monitoring program. to permit Its evalua-
tion, and to establish a feedback mechanism.
- To promote the Importance of enforcement presence
through effective compliance monitoring activities.
- To ensure an adequate level of resource commitment.
- To assure emission standards are met through effec-
tive use of compliance monitoring activities.
(2) Requirements
Sources subject to this strategy if its flexibility is to be fully utilized. are
the following.
Group I: Traditional stationary sources - Class A
and known Class B SIP. NSPS. and operating
NES1-IAPs sources.
Group II: Asbestos D&R Strategy contractors.
means State or local agency throughout.
1

-------
Group Ill: Sources subject to the Small VOC Source Compliance
Strategy.
Group IV: Sources of State concern.
The national prioritIes must be met, or In cases where exceptions are
Justified, the rationale for the exceptions must be agreed to by EPA. Groups I.
II. and III will encompass the national priority categories In F? 1989.
However, national priorities may change from year to year.
In F? 1989, the national priorities are the following.
- Class A sources emitting VOC In ozone nonattalnment
areas. (Group I)
- Class Al sources emitting TSP, S02, CO. or NOx In
nonattainment areas. (Group I)
- Class A sources emitting any criteria pollutant In
attainment or unclassified areas that have known or
suspected compliance problems. (Group I)
- Lead SIP and operating NESHAP sources. (Group I)
- Asbestos demolition/renovation contractors per the
revised Asbestos S’rategy dated March 31. 1988.
(Group II)
- Small VOC sources per the Small VOC Source Compliance
Strategy dated July 6. 1987. (Group III)
Inspection quality under this strategy must be Level II or higher. as defined
by EPA guidance. Furthermore, this strategy will credit a program for Its total
Inspection activity. That Is. this approach will account for the total
federally-funded compliance monitoring effort Including, where It Is mutually
agreed. the substitution of non-federally regulated source inspections (Group
IV) for federally regulated (Group I). It will be necessary to present the
rationale for this substitution and to enter only the substituted Group IV
sources into CDS.
The inspection targeting model will be run by States wishing to use the
flexibility this strategy offers to determine the inspection commitment for
Group I sources and those Group IV sources that will be substituted for Group
I source Inspections. Inspector-supplied data on emissions, air quality
compliance history, inspection level, inspection time and Inspection
frequency axe inputs into the model for these sources. The output of the
targeting model Is a prionty ranking of sources to be inspected with
cumulative resource needs. Attachment 1 provides further details on the
Inspection targeting model. Training in the use of the model will be provided
at EPA’s Regional Offices upon request.
2

-------
The asbestos and small VOC source strategy requirements. where
applicable, will be use to determine the inspection commitments for Groups
II and III.
Recognizing the significant departure this strategy Is from the IFG. it is
expected to take more than one year for widespread implementation of the
Inspection targeting approach. For that reason, Headquarters will closely
monitor the Implementation of the CMS to assess progress and to make
necessary adjustments. Therefore, the Regions are required to report In
which States, and for what reasons. the Inspection targeting approach is not
used. This information should be submitted annually to SSCD along wIth each
State’s inspection plan.
The strategy requires a minimum inspection resource base (baseline) be
established for each group. It will be used by the EPA Regions as a
benchmark to evaluate their States’ inspection plan submittals. The minimum
baseline for each State is established in FY 1989 in the following way.
Group I: The average number of inspections from the
last three years. as reported In CDS.
Group II: The number of inspections in the last
fiscal year, as reported in SPMS.
Group HI: The number of inspections the Small VOC
Source Compliance Strategy requires, or,
supplied by the State, whichever is
larger.
Group IV: The number of Inspections supplied by the
State.
The total level. i.e.. the summation of the minimum baselines for Groups I-W.
used to established the baseline in F? 1989 shall not be reduced in
subsequent years.
(3) State Inspection Plan SubmittaL
Each inspection plan submittal will present how that State will address
national priorities and will justify exceptions to the national priorities. The
plan will also identify specitic sources to be inspected, allocate the total
inspection budget among source groups. and cover other issues that are
necessary to meet the Compliance Monitoring Strategy objectives and
requirements.
The targeting model should be used to determine Group I and specific
Group IV sources to be included In this inspection plan as well as their
priority of inspection. Groups II arid III will be addressed by their national
strategy requirements and by the resources allocated to each group. For
other Group IV source inspections, a block resource allocation will be made
by the State in their plan submittal.
3

-------
These steps will allow the State agency to develop their Initial
comprehensive Inspection plan. which will be submitted to the EPA Region
for review. To Justify exceptions to national priorities, the State must submit
the basis for their decisions, such as the inspection targeting model inputs
and results.
(4) Final Inspection Plan Negotiation
The final comprehensive State inspection plan will be agreed to by both the
EPA Region and the State. This plan will result in the States inspection
commitment to EPA for FY 1989. The resources necessary to fulfill this
commitment are provided by the Section 105 federal grant and State
matching funds.
The final mutually accepted plan will have two parts.,
(a) Inspection commitments and associated resource alloca-
tions.
- Group I sources will be identified by name.
- Group II contractors will be Identified by name.
- Group III sources will be Identified by categoxy with
the estimated resources allocated to this group.
- Group IV sources will be identified by name If they
are to be traded off for Group I source inspections.
otherwise an estimated resource allocation will be
assigned this group.
(b) Accountability measures such as data to be reported
in CDS to measure the States fulfillment of their
Inspection plan commitments. (see Reporting and
Evaluation component).
The EPA Region and State will use the following to finalize the plan.
- State-supplied Input and output from the inspection
targeting models ranking of Groups I and IV sources.
- National strategies for asbestos D&R and small VOC
sources.
- Other EPA-established national priorities.
- State-supplied inspection resource budgets by group.
- Baseline EPA estimates of inspection resource budgets
by gioup. This gives EPA a benchmark to assess the
State-supplied inspection resource budget.
4 -

-------
(5) ReportIng and Evaluation
Improving upon the current IFG, this strategy will emphasize effective and
timely reporting of accountability measures, evaluate each year’s results of
plan Implementation, and build the resulting recommendations Into guidance
for the upcoming operatIng year.
The principal data management tool EPA will use for evaluating the
implementation of this strategy Is the CDS. The specific sources, as well as
data needed for evaluation, should in most cases be tracked In the CDS.
The data that must be kept current and complete In the CDS for Groups I,
II, and III sources arid those specific Group IV sources that are substituted for
Group I inspections, consistent with existing CDS guidance, include the
following.
- source identifier arid location information.
- current and historic compliance status.
- key enforcement actions such as Inspections arid source
tests completed, EERs submitted, and malfunction reports.
- pollutant specific classification for all Class A sources
arid for any sized VOC source in an ozone nonattainment area.
- nonattainment and attainment status code (PAQC).
- pollutant code (PLLT).
- air program code.
- inspection flag.
For other Group 1V sources that are not of federal concern, a year en d
- accounting of resources consumed versus the beginning of the year block
resource allocation estimates should be discussed at the time of the plan
evaluation. ThIS Is part of the total Inspection activity assessment and
provides a complete picture of resource use in the Inspection program.
These other Group IV sources are not tracked in the CDS.
Additional mechanisms that will be used to monitor and evaluate the
implementation of this strategy will be the National Air Audit System and the
Section 105 compliance guidelines. The NAAS is presently being revised to
accommodate the CMS. The Section 105 compliance guidelines are under
development and will be Issued thIs year.
Alternate Approach
In the event that a State and EPA Region cannot work out an Inspection
plan using the recommended strategy approach. the current Inspection
Frequency Guidance plus the Asbestos D&R and Small VOC Source
Compliance Strategies will determine the State inspection commitments for
the upcoming year. See Attachment 2 for the full text of the current IFG.
For those States that use the current IFG to identify their FY 1989
inspection commitments, an inspection plan must still be submitted to and
accepted by the EPA Region. These plans will basically be limited to Groups I.
II, and Ill sources.
5

-------
The fundamental d1L’ erences between a State Inspection plan developed
using the current IFG 4nd one using the full CMS will be the following.
- Group IV source Inspections will generally not be in
an IFG-based Inspection plan.
- An IFG-based Inspection plan will not capture an
agency’s total Inspection activity.
• Specific focus on national priorities Is not as well
defined in an IFG-based Inspection plan.
While offering this alternate approach. EPA strongly recommends using the
full CMS wIth Inspection targeting whenever possible. However. It Is
recognized that for such reasons as the lack of suitable software and
hardware, a small, easily managed regulated community. an adequate resource
base for comprehensive Inspection coverage, and an Inspection program tied
to an operating permit fee system. the CMS with inspection targeting will not
be universally appropriate.
Responsibifities
(1) EPA Headquarters
EPA Headquarters Is responsible for the annual implementing guidance for
the Compliance Monitoring Strate ’. It will be Issued to the Regional Offices
before April of the preceding fiscal year.
In addition, ongoing refinement and training In the use of the Inspection
targeting model is Headquarters responsibility. It Is expected that as more
agencies become familiar with the value of targeting to their program, the
model will sell itself. After Initial training, some level of ongoing support will
be necessary for the users of this tool. Headquarters will provide that
support.
Finally. Headquarters will evaluate and report the previous year’s
implementation of the strategy to the Air compliance community in the
second quarter of the next fIscal year. The results will be incorporated into
the annual implementing guidance and any strate ’ modifications.
(2) EPA Regional Offices
The Regions are charged with negotiating. approving, and submitting to
Headquarters by August the individual State inspection plans for the
upcoming federal fiscal year. Along with the inspection plans. the Regions are
required to report to Headquarters in which States, and for what reasons, the
inspection targeting approach is not used.
In addition, the Regions must ensure that the applicable sources scheduled
to be inspected per the negotiated inspection plan are entered and flagged in
6

-------
CDS on time. The Regions are also responsible for ensuring the appropriate
data necessary for evaluation are in CDS or are reported to EPA In a complete
and timely fashion.
(3) State Agencies
The State agencies are responsible for providing information and for
running the inspection targeting model, where applicable. They are also
responsible for meeting the commitments of their negotiated Inspection
plans. Finally, the State agencies are responsible for ensuring the appropriate
data are reported in a timely and complete fashion to the Regional Office or
directly into CDS.
When preparing an inspection plan submittal, it is recommended the State
use the inspection targeting model for ranking Group I sources, and those
Group IV sources that may be substituted for Group I source Inspections, on a
State-wide level. The inputs and results are then presented at the inspection
plan negotiation meeting with EPA.
For local districts that have direct Section 105 grantee status, it is
recommended that such districts be ranked using the inspection targeting
model separately from other districts in their State. In such a State. the
State-wide ranking should be an aggregation of individual local grantee
district rankings with the rest of the State. However, as a general practice.
running district by district rankings and aggregating them to the State level Is
discouraged. To do this diminishes a management benefit of the Inspection
targeting model that allows 1denUf ring where current resource distributions
may need reallocation.
For Assistance
The EPA Headquarters contact for this strate r is Howard Wright. He can
be reached at (202) 475-7034. The contractor for the inspection targeting
model is Perrin Quarles of Pernn Quarles Associates, Inc. He can be reached
at (804) 979-3700.
7

-------
l’t*R 3 I RJ
Attachment 1
Further Details on the Inspection Targeting Model
The Inspection targeting model is Jointly funded by Regions V. VIII. and
SSCD. It Is being piloted In Michigan and Colorado. These efforts have
provided a refined product ready for more widespread application.
The model Is a computerized program which ranks sources for Inspection
priority based on Information supplied by State agency Inspectors. It
currently runs on a standard xr or AT personal computer and on an Apple
MacIntosh. ApproxImately 3 megabytes of storage capacity and 512 RAM are
required to run the program for a 2.500 source database. The program is
menu-driven and requires no special computer knowledge.
What Information is Needed to Use the Model?
Targeting data for each source normally include:
- Source identification and classification information
- Size data (for targeted pollutants)
- Last Inspection results
- Other recent compliance history (to the extent available)
- The inspector’s assessment of potential upset conditions at the source
(with four options)
- The Inspectors rating of O&M praci. ces at the source
(with four options)
- NAAQS attainment status
- Relative contribution of the source to air quality problems
(with four options)
- Whether there are multiple compliance problems and/or multiple
pollutant impacts
- The desired Inspection frequency for the source
- The required inspecuc: time and relative inspection difficulty for the
source
- Other unique targeun onsiderations that the inspector feels should be
considered, as well as the inspectors own rating of the sources
Inspection priority (on i 1 to 4 scale).
What is Needed to Implement the Program?
The following steps are necessary to start up and maintain the program.
- Compile a list of sources that will be eligible for Inspection targeting.
The State must identify all NSPS and NESHAPs sources and all sources
over a minimum size (e.g.. 10 tpy actual uncontrolled emissions). Inspectors
should review this list to, make sure that Important sources have not been
omitted. This review may occur when the inspectors are completing
individual data forms. Our experience has shown for the typical State. this

-------
pre-screening of the Inr ntory may take 10 workIng days of total inspector
tune during the Initial tear.
- Prepare targeting data forms for each source included
on the targeted source list.
Basic source identification information can be compiled by administrative
staff using information normally available in agency reports. emissions
inventories, and the like. A data form for each source may be partially filled
out by administrative staff, then forwarded to inspectors responsible for the
individual sources. Compliance and other unique targeting Information would
be provided by the Inspectors.
To minimize misinterpretation and inconsistency among Inspectors and to
ensure maximum efficiency, a half-day meeting or work session should be
scheduled to review the data form and answer questions. All inspectors
should participate. The farms should then be filled out by the inspectors, and
checked by a designated reviewer or manager.
If all inspectors participate, the initial meeting and data form completion
process should take no more than 3 workIng days for each inspector.
- Enter targeting data Into the computer program.
After targeting data forms have been completed. computer entiy may be
performed by clerical staff. Initial entry should be made by one person. then
checked by another person to ensure accuracy. Experience indicates that
Initial data entry should require an average of approxImately 2 minutes per
form and verification should require approxImately 1 minute per form.
• Generate ranking and planning reports.
A ranking report may be generated by simple menu driven computer
commands. The length of time required to generate the report is dependent
on the number of sources and the computer capability. A typical X l ’ processor
at 6 mh without a math coprocessor will normally process a 500-source
database in 2-3 hours. The printing of the report may be generated In 10-30
minutes depending on the speed and type of printer and computer. These
time requirements are significantly reduced by using a 80286 or 80386 based
computer system.
- Maintain the database.
Once established, the database may be fairly easily maintained. As new
Inventory. compliance. or air quality data are obtained, these may be entered
directly into the computerized database by inspectors or field support staff.
It is also possible to edit the hard copy form for data entry by clerical staff.
2

-------
Maintaining the program may be accomplished In a single annual update, or
It may be accomplished as new data are obtained (e.g.. Immediately following
an Inspection). Editing arid reentry require less than one-half of the time per
form that was required for initial completion and entry.
Sii ,nen iy
The model Itself Is easy to use for anyone. It was designed for use by
Inspectors and managers with very limited computer skills. There is a help
file accessible at any time as data are being Input.
When the ranking and estimated Inspection times are coupled with the
known resource base, the actual sources planned to be visited annually can
easily be determined. As a result, an Inspection plan is born. This plan can
serve the State agency as an effective management tool for its own inspectors
as well as serve to meet the EPA’s Compliance Monitoring Strategy
requirements.
Final refinement of the targeting model is completed. It Is available to all
EPA Regions for your testing and familiarization prior to implementation In FY
1989. It is on a floppy disk with accompanying documentation and will be
distributed at the time of the Regional training. Headquarters will continue to
support this activity with on-call technical assistance.
3.

-------
J- 51 ce2/L

-------
Page No. 1
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CM SECTION 123
(VOLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 123
* PN123-86-02-11-O11
PRIORITY FOR REVIEW OF PARTICULATE MATTER SOURCES FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH REVISED STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
* PN123-86-02-l1-012
CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING GUIDANCE ON DISPERSION MODELING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANTS WITH “TALL STACKS” AND OTHER PROHIBITED
DISPERSION TECHNIQUES
* PN123-87-09-03-013
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
* PN123-87-1O-09-014
PROCESSING OF STACK HEIGHT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS
* PN123-88-O1-07-015
STACK HEIGHT EMISSIONS BALANCING - FINAL POLICY STATEMENT (FR
CITATION)
* PN123-88-05-17-016
APPLICATION OF THE INTERIM POLICY FOR STACK HEIGHT REGULATORY
ACTIONS
* PN123 -89-04-20-017
LETTER TO JOHN PROCTOR FROM G. EMISON

-------
5T4, ..
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carohna 27711
PN 123-89-04-20-017
APR 2 . i%9
Mr. John P. Proctor
Bishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds
Law Offices
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005-3502
Dear Mr. Proctor:
Your letter of February 23, 1989 to Administrator Reilly was
referred to me for response. The issues you describe were
previously raised to the attention of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Region III Office. You now question
Region III’s rejection of your position that the best available
retrofit technology (BART) emission rate used in determining the
creditable stack height can be ignored for purposes of setting
the facility’s operating rate as long as the operating rate is
consistent with the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The response provided to you by Region III on October
6, 1988 was extensively discussed with this office and with the
Office of General Counsel, and we fully endorse Region III’s
conclusions and supporting rationale.
In your letter you stated that the sole basis for conducting
a fluid modeling study is to justify credit for stack height
above formula height, and that nothing requires States to rely on
the BART emission rate to determine the appropriate operating
rate. Actually, as noted by Region III, before such credit may
be considered, the preamble to the stack height regulation is
clear that the operating rate must be limited to the BART or new
source performance standards (NSPS) rate. The preamble to the
stack height regulation also notes that an emission limit more
stringent than BART/NSPS may be needed because the sources must
also meet the NAAQS and prevention of significant deterioration
requirements.
We agree with Region III’s conclusion that NBDC v. Thomas ,
838 F.2nd 1224 (D.C. Cir 1988), does not support your position.
In your February 23, 1989 letter to Administrator Reilly, you
raise a new argument not presented to Region III. You argue that
the court recognized that operating emission limitations are to
be determined after stack height credit has been calculated,
based on the court’s acknowledgement that Congress imposed
technology-based limits in some situations, and EPA has authority
to mandate such limits for modeling demonstrations to determine
stack height credit. From this you conclude that a technology-
based enission rate used for fluid modeling is relevant only to
that modeling.

-------
2
In response, we point out first that the court’s discussion
of technology—based emission limitations (838 F.2d at 1241) was
in reference to NRDC’s control-first position and not related to
fluid modeling as you suggest. We believe that the opinion
indicates clearly that the court regarded the presumptive NSPS
emission limit as a limit that must be complied with once the
fluid modeling was completed (“We find the attempt of industry to
bar control-f irst no stronger than NRDC’s effort to require it in
the within-formula context.” 838 F.2d at 1241; “. . industry
petitioners assert that in order to use the NSPS presumption, EPA
must be able to point to substantial evidence that it is attain-
able by most of the affected sources. But as EPA allows any
source to use a higher emissions rate when NSPS is infeasible,
there is no need for any sort of generic demonstration that it is
normally so.” id at 1242).
Second, in quoting EPA’s statement about the significance of
fluid modeling demonstrations, the court was merely citing with
approval EPA’s rationale for refusing to grandfather demonstra-
tions undertaken and approved prior to adoption of the 1985
regulations. This in no way implies a finding by the court that
the presumptive NSPS requirement (or higher BART limit) is not
the constraining limit. Neither of these references provides
support to your position.
In conclusion, we are in full agreement with the position
taken by Region III that sources seeking credit above formula
height must meet an emission rate consistent with BART/NSPS.
While final action as to any particular source would necessarily
await a State implementation plan revision, I hope the above
responds to your inquiry. Staff in our Region III Office are
available to assist you and your client, and I suggest that you
contact them directly if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Gerald A. Emison
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
cc: Charles Carter, OGC
Thomas Maslany, Region III
Marcia Mulkey, Region I II
bcc: Robert Bauman, AQMD Pat Embrey, 0CC
Jesse Baskervil].e, Region III Eric Ginsburg, AQMD
John Calcagni, AQMD Doug Grano, AQMD
SDPMPB:DGrano:DataTech/PRQCTOR2:pplnch:pTp(MD-l5):62 9-5255:4-4-89
Control Numoer O QPS-4E Due Date 4-3-89

-------
PN 123-88—05-17-016
S?4p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Plann;ng and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4
HAy - -
541n1 .1 ( iScj
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Appl p frfj y/4he Interim Policy for Stack Height
FROM: Director
/Air Quality Man ’gement Division (MD—15)
7/
TO: / Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
On April 22, 1988, J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, issued a memorandum entitled, Interim Policy on Stack
Height Regulatory Actions” (Attachment A). The memorandum requests that
the Regional Offices review with their States all regulatory actions
Involving dispersion credits and determine the appropriate action consistent
with the policy. The purpose of today’s memorandum Is to provide guidance
in carrying out the interim policy.
In general, actions taken at this time to approve or disapprove
statewide stack height rules which are affected by the remand must Include
the qualification that they are subject to review and modification on
completion of EPA’s response to the court decision. Permits issued under
the prevention of significant deterioration or new source review programs
should also contain caveat language for sources which may be affected by
the remand. Attachment B contains example boilerplate language to be
inserted into permits and regulatory packages. Note that States must
commit to including the caveat before EPA will take final action on packages
affecting permitting authority. Those actions not involving the remanded
provisions may proceed as usual.
In contrast to our policy regarding the processing of stack height
rules, our policy for source—specific State implementation plan (SIP)
revisions is to avoid proceeding with actions which may need to be
retracted later. You are advised to consult with my staff and the Office
of General Counsel staff prior to submitting such rulemaking packages.
Affected sources must be deleted from negative declaration packages prepared
under the 1985 stack height regulations before EPA can proceed with action
on them.

-------
2
My staff has applied the policy when reviewing packages currently In
Headquarters (Attachment C). While proposals to approve (or disapprove)
State rules will remain on the Headquarters clock, the Regional Offices are
requested to review these packages and provide appropriate boilerplate as
soon as possible. Negative declaration packages and final actions on State
rules are being returned to the Regional Office clock as more substantial
revisions and commitments may be required. The redesignation packages
currently In Headquarters which contain sources affected by the remand are
being placed on formal hold.
If you have any questions regarding the April 22 polIcy, today’s
guidance, or disposition of the SIP s, please contact Janet Metsa
(FTS 629-5313) or Doug Grano (FTS 629—0870).
Attachments
cc: R. Bauman
R. Campbell
C. Carter
G. McCutchen
J. Pearson
J. Sableski
bcc: B. Armstrong
P. Embrey
G. Foote
E. Ginsburg
Grano
Ne Mayer
h Metsa
S. Reinders
R. Roos—Collins
$02 SIP Contacts
Stack Height Contacts, Regions I—X

-------
Attac e t A
II ,
\ . 11 d
MEMORANDUM
UNiTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
ADR 22
SUBJECT: Interim Policy on Stack Mel
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Adminis at
for Air and Radiation ( R—443
TO:
Di rector,
Regions
Di rector,
Region I
Di rector,
Regions
Di rector,
Region V
Di rector,
Regions
Air Management Division
I, III, IX
Air and Waste Management Division
I
Actions
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
IV, vi
Air and Radiation Division
Air and Toxics Division
VII , VIII, X
On January 22, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of-
Columbia issued lts.decision in NRDC v. Thomas , 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. Cir.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892). Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied. Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were remanded to EPA for review:
1. Grandfathering pre—October 11, 1983 within—formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [ 40 CFR 51.100(kk) (2) 3;
2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [ 40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(ii)(A)J; and
3. Grandfathering of pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.51. formula
[ 40 CFR 51.100(ii)(2fl.
A number of pending State Implementation plan (SIP) and other rulemaking
actions may be affected by this decision in advance of EPA’s promulgation of
further revisions of the stack height regulations. This includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack -height regulations,
but also such actions as Issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions

-------
2
dealing with specific source emission limitations, and redesignations under
section 107 of the Clean Air Act. Consequently, until resolution of litigation
and completion of any rulemaking activity to respond to the court decision,
the foll ing policy will be applied.
In general, actions to approve States’ rules may proceed provided appropriate
caveat language is inserted which notes that the action is potentially subject
to review and modification as a result of the recent court decision. Actions
addressing State permitting authority should require States to provide notice
that permits are subject to review and modification If sources are later
found to be affected by revisions to stack height regulations. Where States
currently have the authority to issue permits under fully—approved or delegated
NSR and PSD programs, any permits Issued prior to EPA’s promulgation of
revised stack height regulations should provide notice as described above
that they may be subject to review and modification. R gional Office staff
are requested to contact their State officials and notify them accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to issue permits, it should also insert
appropriate cautionary language in the permit.
The EPA will try to avoid taking source-specific actions that may need
to be retracted later. Such actions may include certain emission limitations
and good engineering practice demonstrations which reflect dispersion credit
affected by the remand. The EPA may approve these State submittals on a
case-by—case basis, with the explicit caution that they and the sources
affected by them may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result of the litigation.
The EPA will continue to process, under normal procedures, any source—specific
actions which do not involve the remanded provisions.
- Requests fcr r2designation of areas from nonattainment to attainment
which are affecteØ by any of the remanded provisions of the stack height
regulations will be put on hold until EPA has completed any rulemaking
necessary to comply with the court’s remand. This is due to the issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment designations.
During this interim period, the Regional Office staff should review with
their States all regulatory actions involving dispersion credits and identify
those actions or sources affected by the remanded provisions. The Region
should consult with their States on appropriate action for all such packages,
consistent with this policy.
If you have any questions regarding the application of this policy,
please contact Doug Grano at FTS 629-0870 or Janet Metsa at FTS 629-5313.
cc: D. Clay
A. Eckert
J. Emison
D. Grano
J. Metsa

-------
Attachment B
The following boilerplate, or variations tailored to suit particular
situations, should be used In rulemaking actions affected by the stack
height remand.
General Addition
“The EPA ’s stack height regulations were challenged in NRDC v.
Thomas , 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). On January 22, 1988, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its decision affirming the
regulations In large part, but remanding three provisions to the EPA for
reconsideration. These are:
1. Grandfathering pre—October 11, 1983 wlthin—fornula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [ 40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)];
2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [ 40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(ii)(A)]; and
3. Grandfathering pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.5L forn jla
[ 40 CFR 51.100(ii)(2)].N
Addition for Stack Heights Rules Packages
“Although the EPA generally approves [ State’s] stack height rules on
the grounds that they satisfy 40 CFR Part 51, the EPA also provides notice
that this action may be subject to modification when EPA completes
rulemaking to respond to the decision in NRDC v. Thomas , 838 F.2d 1224
(D.C. Cir. 1988). If the EPA’s response to the NRDC remand modifies the
July 8, 1985 regulations, the EPA will notify the State of [ ] that its
rules rmjst be changed to comport with the EPA’s modified requirements.
This may result in revised emission limitations or may affect other
actions taken by [ State] and source owners or operators.
Additions for Stack Negative Declaration Packages
“The EPA is not acting on ____ sources (identified in table form or by
asterisk) because they currently receive credit under one of the provisions
remanded to the EPA in NRDC v. Thomas , 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir 1988).
The [ State] and EPA will review these sources for compliance with any
revised requirements when the EPA completes rulemaking to respond to the
NRDC remand.”

-------
2
Additions for Stack Height Emission Limitation Changes or
Good Engineering Practice Demonstration
The OAQPS and OGC will provide language on a case—by—case basis when
the EPA is acting on a source-specific package which is affected by the
remand.
Language for Proposed NSR and PSD SIP Approvals
“Under this program, [ State] will be issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court—ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
For this reason, EPA requires that the State include the following caveat
in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes Its
reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates any
necessary revisions:
‘In approving this permit, [ name of agency] has determined that the
application complies with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. Thomas , 838 F.2d
1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Consequently, this permit may be subject to
modification if and when EPA revises the regulation in response to
the court decision. This may result In revised emission limitations
or may affect other actions taken by the source owners or operators.’
[ State] must make an enforceable commitment to include this caveat in
all affected permits before the EPA can take final action approving the
[ NSR or PSD] program.”
Language for Final NSR and PSD SIP Approvals
Under this program, [ State] will be issuing permits and establishing
emission limitations that may be affected by the court—ordered reconsideration
of the stack height regulations promulgated on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).
For this reason, the EPA has required that the State Include the following
caveat in all potentially affected permit approvals until the EPA completes
its reconsideration of remanded portions of the regulations and promulgates
any necessary revisions:
‘In approving this permit, [ name of agency] has determined that the
application complies with the applicable provisions of the stack
height regulations as revised by the EPA on July 8, 1985 (50 FR
27892). Portions of the regulations have been remanded by a panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. Thomas , 838
F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Consequently, this permit may be subject
to modification if and when the EPA revises the regulations in

-------
3
response to the court decision. This may result in revised emission
limitations or may affect other actions taken by the source owners
or operators.’
EState] has made an enforceable cormnitment to include this caveat in
all affected permits by letter dated [ ]. This commitment Is being
Incorporated into the Code of Federal gu1ations for the State of [ _] as
part of EPAs approval actlon.u
See Attachment D for sample CFR amendment.
The Regional Offices are requested to contact those States that
currently have permitting authority and request that they include similar
language In any permits issued until EPA has completed its reconsideration
of the stack height regulations and has promulgated any necessary revisions.

-------
Attachment C
State AQMD # Description Disposition
AZ/CA/NV 3059 Promulgation of Stack Height Regs. HQ
AZ/CA/NV 3210 App. and Disapp. of Stack Height Req. RO
SC 3243 Negative Declaration RD
MS 3330 Mississippi’s Negative Declaration RO
NJ/NY/V1 3418 Stack Height Revisions RD
WA 3480 Stack Height Rules HQ
MD 3543 Negative Declaration RO
AR 3548 Stack Height Rules HQ
OH 3570 Stack Height Regulations HQ
TX 3572 Stack Height Regulations HQ
LA 3592 Revisions to Stack Height Rules HQ
DE 3600 Stack Height Regulations HQ
OH 3334 Redeslgnation of Galia County to Hold
Attainment
SD 3618 Administrative Rules RD
CO 3623 Negative Declaration RD

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
/ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1 2 NOV 7
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT. Incorporation by Reference
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief4
Cont ol Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I—X
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has recently advised us
that commitment letters are not acceptable for incorporation by reference
because they are not regulatory in nature.
Instead, the OFR has informed us that the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) can be amended by adding a new section or amending an existing section
to add the commitment; the “Identification of Plan” paragraph should not
be amended.
Attached is an example of a CFR page that the OFR has reviewed and
approved and the commitment letter from the State of Minnesota that was
the basis for this sample regulatory text. Please note that the core
paragraph from the letter should be quoted in the new section that is
being added to the CFR.
If you have any questions on incorporation by reference procedures,
call Denise Gerth at 629-5550. Thank you for your cooperation.
Attachments

-------
2
cc: Betty Abramson
Walter Bishop
Ted Creekmore
Tom Diggs
Pat Embrey
Greg Foote
Denise G;rth
Dean Gillam
Laurie Kral
Carol LeValley
Sandy McLean
Bob Miller
Rich Ossias
Carolyn Payne
Sharon Reinders
Julie Rose
John Slivasi
Marcia Spink
Rebecca Taggart
Paul Truchan

-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart Y, is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows
AUTHORITY: •42 U.S.C. 7401—7642
2. A new Section 52.1237 Is added as follows:
§52.1237 Stack Height Regulations
The State of Minnesota has comml.tted to conform to the Stack
Height Regulations as set forth In 40 CFR Part 51. In a letter to
Mr. David Kee, EPA, dated January 14, 1987, Mr. Thomas J. Kalitowski
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stated:
Minnesota does not currently have a stack height rule,
nor do we intend to adopt such a rule. Instead, we will
conform with the Stack Height Regulation as set forth
in the July 8, 1985 Federal Register in Issuing permits
for new or modified sources. In cases where that rule
Is not clear, we will contact U.S. EPA Region V and
conform to the current federal interpretation of the
Item in question.

-------
PN 123—88—01—07—015
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice
entitled:
Stack Height Emissions Balancing; Final
Policy Statement (53 FR 480, January 7, 1988)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance
Notebook. Please refer to this notice for EPA
policy/guidance related to this subject.

-------
ri i j-o/-itj-ui-u.iq
€O Sr , .e
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
9 OCT 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT. Processing of Stack Height Negative Declarations
FROM: G. 1. Helms, Chief 21 i 1J _ . — ’
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify and revise some points
in my September 3, 1987, memorandum entitled “Technical Support for Stack
Height Negative Declarations.” That memorandum included a list of minimum
requirements for determining adequate documentation with three additional
guidance documents attached. One of the attachments was the August 28,
1987, memorandum from Charles Carter of the Office of General Counsel (OGC)
and me to Bruce Miller of Region IV, entitled ‘Documentary Support for
Deficiencies in Stack Height Review Packages.” Because several actions
are being delayed by inadequate documentation, we sent copies of the
August 28 memorandum to all ten Regions as examples to alert them to
these problems.
The Tennessee State implementation plan (SIP) was used as an example
because we believed it had deficiencies that were common to other negative
declaration packages. The use of the Tennessee evaluation as an example
was not intended to single out Region IV as having more problems with
documentation than other Regions, although the tone of the memorandum
might have given• this impression. I am sorry for this misrepresentation.
In a recent conference call with OGC and Region IV, Region IV
suggested three clarifications and revisions to the guidance that we
included in the August 28, 1987, and September 3, 1987, memorandums. We
believe these should be incorporated. They are as follows:
1. The requirement for a list of sources evaluated for
negative declarations applies only to sources greater
than 65 meters.
2. For grandfathering documentation, the date the
source was built is not essential, but the type and
date of the documentation that the source was built
prior to December 31, 1970, must be listed. However,
whenever the actual construction date is submitted
by the State, it should be included.
NOTE: Attachments 1 and 2 are not
included in the Policy and
Guidance Notebook.

-------
2
3. It is not necessary that a Region give assurances that
they are confident the documentation is adequate; however,
regional management should be satisfied that the State
submission meets the requirements of the stack height
regulation.
We also agreed during the conference call that the Delaware negative
declaration (#3356) (See Attachment 1) includes a good tabular form to
present the good engineering practice (GEP) review in a Federal gister
notice or the accompanying technical support document (ISO). Attachments
2 and 3 present expanded tables for stacks over 65 meters and for sources
over 5000 tons per year. The notice does not have to include tables in
these formats, but the information required in them should be discernable
from the notice and/or ISO. For example, the Delaware table in Attachment 1
is a shortened version of Attachment 2, since no stacks exceeded GEP.
I hope this memorandum clarifies my past correspondence and gives
you a better understanding of the documentation necessary for processing
stack height negative declarations. If you have any questions, please
call Ted Creekmore (629-5699) or me (629-5526). Thank you for your
patience during the processing of these complex SIP revisions.
Attachments
cc: Charles Carter
Pat Embrey
Sharon Reinders
Richard Roos-Collins
Ted Creekmore
Dave Stonefield
Eric Ginsberg
John Silvasi

-------
Ii
€O Sr 4 ,.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
pq0 ”
03 SEP fl37
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Technical Support for Stack Height Negative Declarations
FROM: Tom Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
Several negative declarations for the stack height requirements
are currently under review. Many of these actions are being delayed
because we are concerned that the documentation each submittal
should contain to support the grandfathering, good engineering practice
calculation, and review of sources with emissions over 5000 tons/year,
etc., is inadequate. Because of the many actions involved and the
potential for major effort to upgrade the docunentations, I believe that
detailed minimum requirements for documentation should be set forth.
After discussing the technical support issue with my staff and the Office
of General Counsel, I suggest the following minimum requirements for
determining adequate documentation for, and processing of, these proposals.
1. Technical Support Requirements for Negative Declarations:
a. States should compile documentation and submit it to the Region
or make it available at State offices,
b. The Federal Register notice should cite where documentation is
readily available to the public (docket or State),
c. Federal Register packages and technical support documents (TSD)
must contain a basis for each conclusion regarding each stack
covered by the regulations. The notice or ISO should include
the following:
o A statement describing when the stack was built and how we
know it was built, and what formula and models were used and why.
° A list of sources evaluated for the negative declaration with the
citation of documentation listed by source (FPC-67 form, map,
design specification, etc.).
d. Regions should have discussed the contents of the documentation
with the States and should be satisfied that it meets minimum
EPA requirements.
NOTE: Attachments 1 — 3 are not included in
the Policy and Guidance Notebook.

-------
2
2. Documentation Needed by EPA Headquarter’s Reviewers Before Concurrence:
a. The ISO as described in ic above.
b. The Region’s assurance that they are confident the documentation
is adequate and a list of sources with citation of documentation
included in the Federal Register notice or docket.
c. We do not need to see all the State’s referenced material (maps,
FPC forms, etc.) just a summary as an indication that the
documentation exists.
As additional guidance, r have attached a memorandum which includes
a detailed list of documentation requirements and a detailed review of the
Tennessee SIP revision (Attachment 1). Much of the Tennessee memorandum
is based on Appendix G to the Stack Height Workshop Manual (Attachment 2)
and an October 10, 1985, memorandum from Tom Helms to the Regional Air
Branch Chiefs (Attachment 3) . We encourage you to use the Appendix G
Form as a minimum in preparing the TSD. Please call me (629—5526) or
Ted Creekmore(629-5699) if you wish to to discuss any specific issues.
Thanks.
Attachments
CC: Charles Carter
Pat Embry
Sharon Reinders
Richard Roos-Collins
Ted Creekmore
Dave Stonefield

-------
PN 123-86-02-11-012
.c
- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

1 ‘986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Existing Guidance on Dispersion
Modeling Requirements for Pla s With “Tall Stacks”
and Other Prohibited Disper 1 Tec ’ques
FROM: Darryl 0. Tyler. Director
Control Programs Development Dj4i ion (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I—X
The purpcse of this r’ie io is to clarify EPA’s guidance on the dispersion
analysis requirements that are necessary to implement the revised stack
eight regulations (see EPA’s Stack Height Workshop Manual dated October
1985) and, second, to respond to questions on whether dispersion modeling
is required in the context of checking for prohibited dispersion credit
if a source’s emission limitation was not developed by means of a case-
specific dispersion analysis.
In cases where stack height credit and/or dispersion credit changes
and a dispersion analysis has been performed in any context, that
analysis must to be reviewed to determine if the model inputs reflect
credit for stack height(s) above ood engineering practice (GEP) or ani
other prohibited dispersion technique(s) . (Review of the model inputs
applies to both the specific source(s) for which the analysis is conducted
and nearby point sources as performed for a new or renewed permit, a new
source review/ prevention of significant deterioration national ambient
air quality standard attainment or increment analysis, a State plan to
propose revision of its federally approved State implementation plan
(SIP) emission limitations, justification of the current SIP limitations,
or any attainment/nonattainment redesignation(s), etc.)
If the analysis reflects credit for prohibited dispersion techniques,
then the source(s) need to be remodeled without the prohibited credit(s)
and revised emission limitation established in the event that the analysis
shows an attainment or increment problem. If a source’s emission limit
was established by ambient air quality considerations such as rollback,
modeling is required to demonstrate consistency with the stack height

-------
—2—
regulation because credit for prohibited dispersion techniques is reflected
in the monito ’ed value. If a source has never been analyzed for dispersion,
then it is not necessary to conduct a dispersion analysis now.
It is a State responsibility to demonstrate (1) that the SIP limit
does not consicer the results of dispersion analyses, (2) that the source
has never been evaluated for dispersion credit, or (3) that existing or new
analyses are consistent with guidance. Regions are encouraged to provide
assistance to States in this endeavor if the impacted agency so desires.
It is always appropriate for an individual State or Region to request or
initiate a modeling analysis where one does not exist if there is reason
to believe that a source’s emission limitation is inconsistent with the
stack height regulations. However, EPA is not calling for an across the
board modeling analysis from every source.
Please pass this information along to your
questions on implementing this guidance, please
FTS 629-5526 or Eric GinsDurg at FIS 629-5540.
cc: Regional Administrator, Regions I—X
Chief, Air Branch, Region I-X
Regional Stack Height Contact, Regions I-X
R. Brenner
R. Campbell
C. Carter
C. Elkins
States. If you have any
call Sharon Reinders at
G. Eniison
1. Helms
D. Rhoads
B. 3. Steigerwald
J. Tikvart
P. Wyckoff

-------
PN 123-86-02-11-011
_ :
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Priority for Review of Partic ate Matter Sources for Compliance
With Revised Stack Height R u ations
FROM: Darryl 0. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Divjlfon (MD—15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I—X
In response to requests from a number of Regional Offices, I would
like to clarify the applicability of the revised stack height regulations
to particulate matter sources and to provide guidance on conducting reviews
of these sources.
As indicated in the preamble to the revised regulations, we intend to
review pollutants other than S02-—specifically TSP—-to determine the appro-
priateness of a de minimis exemption from prohibitions against the use of
dispersion technT ues. Until a d cision is made to adopt such an exemption,
however, the prohibitions remain applicable to all stationary sources of
TSP. Recognizing that time and resources will not allow the review of all
potentially affected sources within the period prescribed by the Clean Air
Act, I am requesting that you give highest priority to the review of affected
SO 2 sources. Following this, larger TSP sources should be reviewed, such
as primary smelters, steel mills, etc., where prohibited dispersion techniques
could readily be employed. This is a clarification of rr ’ August 7, 1985,
memorandum wherein we requested a review of the above sources as a ufirst
cut..u The TSP sources with stacks less than the 65 meter de minimis height
should be reviewed only after reviews of all affected SO 2 sources and larger
TSP sources have been completed. It is our expectation that a decision will
be made regarding a de mininiis size exemption before it becomes necessary to
review this last cat ory of sources.
If you or your staff have any questions about this guidance, please
call Eric Ginsburg at (FIS) 629-5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FTS) 629-5526.
cc: R. Bauman (MD-iS)
R. Campbell (MD—b)
C. Carter (LE-132A)
T. Helms (MD-15)

-------

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/8 9
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 126
(VOLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 126
* PN126—89—01—11—005
LETTER TO THOMAS JORLING REGARDING INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION CRITERIA

-------
PN 126-89-01-11-005
Sr.,.
g .
i ,1 U”ITED STATES ENV!RO .\IENTAL PROTECT!O\ AGE\C\
. 1!q WASH L\GTON, D.c.. 2O4 0
9 4
t
JAM OFFICE OF
I I I 9 A I AM *ADIATION
Mr. I nas C. Jorling
CcTrru .ssioner, New York Departineiit
of ivi ror ental Conservation
50 ‘blf Road
A.i.bany, Ne..i York 12233
Dear Mr. Jorling:
This is in resprise to your petition of bv nber 17, 1987 which we
ha’;e been reviewing. Pursuant to your request of Decet ber 15, 1987, we
pst ned arty action on the petition 1ti1 it had been s1 l nented; the
s p1 tt which we subsequently received was dated JUly 15, 1988. This
letter & dresses the petition’s claim which was filed pirsuant to section
126 of the Clean kir ct (Act). The rest of the claizts in the petition were
filed truer the P ninjstratjve Procedure Act. The thvirorm taj Protection
qency ( A) will resp)rxI to the other clairi (ret filed tn er section 126)
in the context of issuing our st-1987 ozone and carbon Tronoxide pDlicy
which will provide the guidance necessary to correct the ozone and car n
rr noxide nor attair t prob1e in the northeastern States.
hi our view, the claim filed w er section 126 n kes only the
rnirurtal sixwing adequate to initiate the section 126 hearing process.
Therefore, I i ust advise you that ir preliminary review indicates that
substantial. S 1 nerit inlonmation and duc’.m tation will be necessary to
Justify a favorable finding under that statutory provision.
As you 3acw, A ha described the specific criteria for relief
under Section 126 in its rul nakings on the petitions filed in 1980 and 1981
by the States of P risy1vania, New York, and Maine. See 49 FR 34851
(Septettber 4, 1984) and 49 FR 48152 (Decei er 10, 1984). Briefly, the
criteria for relief are:
a. The petition must address a 1lutant for which a
standard is established under section 109 of the
Act.
b. The p titioji must identify tue geographic
area for th1ch the petitioner is seeking reliet.

-------
2
c. The petition sust daivnstrate that a national
ambient air quality starx ard ( QS) is violated,
or that a prevention of significant deterioration
(P ) ircrenent (where a licable) is exceeded in
the area of concern.
d. The petition riust identify the major stationary
sources which are located in up ii States, ar
against which the petitioner is seeking relief.
e. The petition ITn. st de n.strate that the identified
sources significantly contri ite to that
violation of the t S or PSD iirrar it. that
, the petition ntist provide evid e which
tracks or predicts the atiTospheric dispersion of
the ei issions fran the identified sources, ar
mist estimate the contri .it ion fran the
identified sources to the level of pDllution
causing the violation. In ition, the petition
rust a ress the factors listed in 49 FR 34859
col. 2, ar d rr iistrate that the contribition
fran the identified sources is si iificant.
The birden of satisfying the a1x ve criteria is on the petitioner,
nx er New York et al. v. EPA , 852 F.Zd 574 (D.C. dr. 1988). Oir
preliminary review suggests that your petition lacks the specificity ard
evid& e required to satisfy criteria (d) ard (e). Such in.formation is
necessary in order for the ónixi.isuator to craft a proper rere y wder
section 126.
Your petition cites ucdeling ard neteorological charts slwthg that
ozone ard its precursors are transp,rted interstate up the eastern sea ard. -
It discusses the idant ?tdeling for the New York r tropolitan Area Project
prediction that the New York zretro 1itan area u1d be rcnattaii t even
if all volatile organic calp3urd (\ t) nissions in New Jersey,
New York, ard Cormecticut were eli.miiiated. H eVer, it does N t clearly
identify tX specific major stationary sources against which action wder
section 126 is sought; irr does it provide any rn. rerica.1 estimates of the
contribition of these particular major stationary (as distinct fran mir r
stationary, obi1e, aid areawide) sources to the violations of the ozone
stardard in t York. In this circ m starce (where you allege contribitions
fran nine up.rird States), st .h an estimate will need to be based on a
rel:able source-receptor analysis which clearly de onstrates the significant
contri itions of identified sources to downwird r os or P&) violations. As
you are probably aware, this u1d require extensive data on eTtlssiofls
(particularly C species data fran irdividual sources) aid long-range air
transort data.

-------
3
Please 2vise ire whether you would prefer to prepare s1 nenta1
evidence res nsive to criteria (d) and (e) • or whether you desire EPA to
schedule a hearing on the section 126 claim in the petition as submitted.
ould you still desire EPA to schedule the hearing, please advise me of a
date you woui.d consider appropriate.
I appreciate this op rtunity to be of service and trust that this
infonnation will be helpful to you.
I n R. Cia
cting Assistant ninistrator
for Air and Radiation
CC: Wil1j n J. ?l.1sz ski
Gerald A. i,ison

-------
,14 5 - )-‘rtcon36r.
‘ zS

-------
Page No. 1
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CM SECTION 165
(VOLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 165
* PN165-86-11-24-016
NEED FOR A SHORT-TERM BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED WILLIAM A. ZIMMER POWER PLANT
* PN165-87-02-27-017
PLANTWIDE DEFINITION OF MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION
* PN165-87-04-08-018
CLARIFICATION OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW POLICY ON AVERAGING TIMES FOR
PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
* PN165-87-04-22-019
HUNTSVILLE INCINERATOR - DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
* PN165-87-06-26-020
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED
MUNICI PAL WASTE COMBUSTORS(MWCs)
* PN165-87-09-22-021
IMPLEMENTATION OF NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY PSD REMAND
* PN165-87-12-01-022
IMPROVING NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) IMPLEMENTATION
* PN165-85-06-28-023
MEMO TO WILLIAM S. BAKER ON SEASONAL AFTERBURNER POLICY
* PN165-86-07-07-024
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) DEFINITION OF
“MODI FICATION”
* PN165-86-1O-21-025
APPLICABILITY OF PSD TO PORTIONS OF A PLANT CONSTRUCTED IN PHASES
WITHOUT PERMITS
* PN165-86-12-01-026
NEED FOR EMISSION CAP ON COMPLEX NETTING SOURCES
* PN165-87-O1-29-027
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REVISED MODELING GUIDELINE FOR PREVENTION
OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
* PN165-87-08-05-028
IMPLEMENTATION OF REVISED PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PSD) PROGRAM FOR PARTICULATE MATTER

-------
Page No. 2
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CM SECTION 165
(VOLUME 2)
* PN165-87-10-06-029
EMISSIONS FROM LANDFILLS
* P11165-88-04-25-030
LAER EMISSION LIMITS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK TOPCOAT
OPERATIONS
* PN165-88-06-07-031
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PSD) APPLICABILITY DETERMINATION
* PN165-88-07-05-032
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
(PSD)
* PN165-88-07-28-033
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE IN IMPLEMENTING THE NORTH COUNTY PREVENTION
OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) REMAND
* PN16S-88-08-29-034
TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY IN DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION
RATE (LAER)
* PN165-88-09-09-035
APPLICABILITY OF PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) TO THE WISCONSIN
ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (WEPCO) PORT WASHINGTON LIFE EXTENSION
PROJECT
* PN165-88-1O-14-036
LETTER TO JOHN BOSTON FROM LEE THOMAS ON WEPCO DETERMINATION
* PN165-89-02 -15-037
GUIDANCE ON EARLY DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE NITROGEN
DIOXIDE (N02) INCREMENTS PROGRAM
* PN165-89-02-28-038
GUIDANCE ON DETERMINING LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LAER)
* ‘PN165-89-O3-16-039
USE OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FOR NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS (NAAQS) IMPACT ANALYSES UNDER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
* PN165-89-03-31-040
APPLICATION OF BUILDING DOWNWASH IN PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (PSO) PERMIT ANALYSES

-------
Page No. 3
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 165
(VOLUME 2)
* PN165-89-04-1O-041
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD) APPLICABILITY TO
SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02) EMISSIONS FROM INCINERATION OF TOTAL REDUCED
SULFUR (TRS) COMPOUNDS

-------
O ST
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
I Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
10 1 PP i 189
PN 165-89-04-10-041
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Applicability to Sulfur Dioxide (SO ) Emissions
from Incineration of Total Reduced sulfur (TRS)
FROM:
r Quality Ma Iageme it Division (MD-]5)
TO: Winston A. SInit ?rector
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division,
EPA Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of March 16, 1989 in
which you requested answers to questions concerning PSD applica-
bility to SO 2 emissions resulting from a boiler modification at
Union Camp Corporation’s Savannah, Georgia, kraft pulp mill. The
issue, in general, is whether an increase in emissions of one
pollutant at a source is exempt from PSD review when it results
from the addition of an air pollution control device or a change
in the method of operation of the source to reduce emissions of
another pollutant. According to your memorandum, the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division has contested Region Iv’s
position that PSD would apply to an increase of SO, emissions on
the order of several thousand tons per year (tpy) from the pulp
mill’s power boiler as the result of incinerating TRS compounds.
You asked whether Union Camp’s power boiler would be subject to
PSD for SO 2 and whether best available control technology (BACT),
ambient air impact, and increment consumption analyses would be
required. You also asked whether any grandfathering provisions
are applicable to sources that may have constructed under a
permit that did not contain a BACT analysis for power boiler SO 2
emission increases resulting from incineration of TRS compounds.
In addition you requested: (1) a count of agencies with approved
section 111(d) TRS plans indicating which ones have interpreted
these rules similar to Florida; and (2) a list of sources that
have not been required to undergo a BACT analysis under
conditions similar to the Union Camp situation in question.
On July 7, 1986, the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards sent to all Regional Air Division Directors a *
memorandum addressing this very issue (see attached). The
memorandum also appears as item number 4.32 in the New Source
Review PSD and Nonattainnent Area Guidance Notebook. The
c€. /)( I i_S-c 1-O1-° 2 ’i
or
. 7/7/9 / At M C ,Jcr / rTP’Ct 1 ,

-------
2
memorandum makes clear that the new source performance standard
exemption of certain changes to a source’s emission control
systems (and resulting emissions increase) from inclusion in the
definition of “modification” does not apply to the definition of
“modification” under PSD. Because the modifications to the power
boiler at the Union Camp mill result in an emissions increase
exceeding the significance level (40 tpy) for triggering PSD
applicability as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i), the emissions
increase is subject to a full PSD review, including “top-down”
BACT, air quality impact, and increment consumption analyses.
State agencies and permit applicants should have been aware
within six months of issuance of the policy explained in the
July 7, 1986, memorandum. Therefore, no grandfathering is needed
for sources permitted after January 7, 1987. In cases where a
pulp mill or other source is constructing or operating based on a
permit that erroneously exempted emission increases of a
pollutant from PSD review, the source is subject to enforcement
action by the State or local agency. Appropriate enforcement
action would include requiring the source to perform any analyses
required under full PSD review that were not done for the
approved permit. The reviewing authority may, of course, using
the complete PSD analyses submitted by the source, consider
energy, environmental, and economic impacts in determining BACT.
Under no circumstances may emissions cause or contribute to a
violation of any national ambient air quality standard or PSD
increment.
Concerning State TRS plans, the Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 62, lists States with approved plans. I suggest that you
refer to this Part to determine the status of the States’ section
111(d) TRS plans. Also, we are not aware of any other similar
sources that may have been issued a permit without undergoing a
BACT analysis. However, this memorandum will be sent to the
Regional Offices with a request that, if any Region is aware of
sources which may have been issued a permit without undergoing a
BACT analysis, they contact you directly. In addition, we will
post it on the NSR electronic Bulletin Board and request that the
Regions send a copy to the States.
If you have any more questions concerning PSD applicability
at the Union Camp pulp mill, please contact Sam Duletsky in our
New Source Review Section at FTS 629-0873.
Attachment
cC: E. Lillis
G. McCutchen
S. Duletsky
D. Painter

-------
, / /
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1” .- 2--
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
t
31 i.., - iggg PN 165-89-03-31-040
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicat’ion’ Bpilding Downwash in Prevention of
Sig ica’ rioration (PSD) Permit Analyses
FROM: di
/r Division (MD-15)
TO: ‘William 8. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division (6T)
Region VI
Thank you for your memorandum of March 8, 1989 in which you
urge consideration of changes to EPA’S current policy of applying
building downwash to background sources in PSD modeling. Your
memorandum describes problems associated with the collection of
building dimension data necessary for downwash modeling, and you
suggest that EPA might issue rules and provide funding to collect
this building data. Alternatively, you believe that downwash
modeling should not be required for any background sources.
Members of my staff are currently analyzing several
approaches for handling background sources. This will be the
subject of a future conference call with the Regional Offices.
In the interim, some of our concerns regarding this issue and
your specific suggestions are discussed below.
The Guideline on Air Ouality Models notes that background
concentrations are an essential part of the total air quality
concentration to be considered in determining source impacts and
therefore requires certain background sources to be fully
modeled. The Guideline indicates that “. . . all sources
expected to cause a significant concentration gradient in the
vicinity of the source or sources under consideration for
emission limit(s) should be explicitly modeled.” This guidance
provides considerable flexibility and requires judgment to be
exercised by the reviewing agency in identifying which background
sources should be fully modeled. The burden of collecting
building dimension data may be mitigated somewhat by application
of this judgment. We are exploring the development of additional
guidance to better assist in this judgment. However, I caution
that it may not be possible to establish many objective “bright
line” tests that will eliminate the need for Regional Office
judgment in individual cases.

-------
2
I realize that information needed to model background
sources is frequently not contained in the State’s existing
emission inventory. In some cases the applicant will need the
reviewing agencyto assist in collecting the data. However, I am
not convinced that we must undertake a national effort to issue
regulations or to fund the States/Regional Offices to collect the
data. It is important to note that the PSD rules place this
burden primarily on the proposed source, not the regulatory
agencies.
Your memorandum suggests that the PSD analyses could ignore
building downwash effects. I do not believe that the PSD rules
and the Guideline allow this alternative. Further, since it is
not unusual to find a national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) violation caused by downwash, the PSD analysis must
carefully consider that possibility. If a proposed source
contributes to a NAAQS violation caused by downwash from a
background source, the permit cannot be issued. On the other
hand, not every source potentially subject to downwash must be
evaluated. Therefore, we are pursuing alternatives to better
define the range within which detailed modeling should be
required.
In summary, please be assured that we are sensitive to the
issues raised in your memorandum and that we will coordinate with
Region VI in this effort. If you have any questions, please
contact me or have your staff contact Doug Grano at 629-5255.
cc: R. Bauman
D. deRoeck
E. Ginsburg
D. Grano
W Laxton
Lillis
J. Tikvart
D. Wilson
J. Yarbrough

-------
• L)(’ iItL $IA1ES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air QuaIi Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
t
16 ML. 1 I3 PN 165-89-03-16-039
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Use of Allowable Emissions for National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Impact Analyses Under the
Requi evention of Significant
FROM:
,(MD—l5)
TO: Thomas J. Maslany, Director
Air Management Division, Region III
William B. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, & Toxics Div., Region VI
This memorandum is in response to recent requests from your
offices for clarification of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) policy concerning the implementation of the PSD
air quality impact analysis under 40 CFR 5l. 66(k) (also
§52.21(k)]. Of specific concern is the question of whether the
required analysis for new major sources and major modifications
is to be based on actual or allowable emissions from existing
background sources. This memorandum sets forth the position that
allowable emissions should generally be used. However, as
explained below, certain allowances may be made, primarily with
respect to the evaluation of impacts on the long term NAAQS, to
consider an existing source’s actual annual operations. This
position best resolves the inconsistencies between previous
written guidance for PSD and the guidance applicable to MAAQS
attainment demonstrations for State implementation plans (SIP’S).
The PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(k) stipulate that
“ allowable emission increases from the proposed source or
modification, in conjunction with all other applicable emissions
increases.., would not cause or contribute to air pollution in
violation of (any national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS)].” (Emphasis added.) While this provision clearly
requires the use of allowable emissions for the new or mod .fied
source, it offers no similarly explicit requirement regardtng
emissions to be used for existing source contributions.
Technicdl Support ivision (MD-14)

-------
2
Nationally, States and EPA Regional Offices have Utilized
several interpretations which have lead to a consistency problem
in implementing the requirement for a NAAQS demonstration under
40 CFR 51.166(k). Some States presently accept the use of actual
source emissions for existing background point sources, and
reference EPA guidance to support their position. Regions, on
the other hand, encourage the use of emissions estimates more
closely reflecting legally allowable emissions.
Available EPA guidance for PSD, which dates back to 1980,
supports the use of actual emissions to project the air quality
impacts caused by existing point sources. Specifically, the
“Prevention of Significant Deterioration Workshop Manual” (EPA-
450/2-80—081, October 1980) states that “actual emissions should
be used... to reflect the impact that vould be detected by
ambient air monitors” for the PSD NAAQS analysis. However,
because many sources typically emit at rates well below their
legally allowable emission rate on an aniiual basis, we now
believe that the use of actual emissions to demonstrate NAAQS
attainment could substantially underestimate the potential air
quality impacts resulting from existing sources.
The EPA’s policy for demonstrating stationary point source
compliance with the NAAQS for SIP purposes clearly requires the
use of emissions which are more closely tied to allowable
emissions. The model emission input data requirements for such
SIP demonstrations are contained in Table 9—i of the “Guideline
for Air Quality Models (Revised)” (GAQM), EPA—450/2-78—02R, .3uly
1986. For “nearby background sources” an adjustment to the
allowable emission rateL may be made only for determinations of
compliance with the annual and quarterly NAAQS, and only with
respect to the annual operating factor. For “other background
sources” an adjustment to both the operating level and the
operating factor, as explained in Table 9—1, could be made for
determinations of compliance with the long term and short term
NAAQS.
The referenced model emission input data requirements for
existing point sources are contained in the GAQM which has
undergone rulemaking and is incorporated by reference in EPA’S
PSD regulations under Parts 51 and 52. Although a footnote in
Table 9-1 indicates that the model input data requirements may
not apply to PSD NAAQS analyses, we now believe that such
requirements should be applied to PSD rather than using actual
emissions as indicated in the 1980 PSD guidance. Thus,
1 Emission rates for model input consist of three components:
1) the emission limit, e.g., 1/roioBtu; 2) the operating level,
e.g., minBtu/hour; and 3) the operating factor, e.g., hours/day,
hours/year.

-------
3
compliance demonstrations for PSD and for stationary source
control strategies under SIP’s will be accomplished in a
consistent manner.
In order to apply Table 9-1 in the GAQM to PSD NAAQS
analyses, certain clarifications need to be provided. First, the
proposed major- new source or major modification must be modeled
at its maximum allowable emission rate. Second, the existing
facility to which a major modification has been proposed, but
whose actual emissions (not including emissions from the proposed
modification) will remain unchanged, may be considered as the
“stationary point source subject to SIP emission limit(s)...” to
determine the model emission input requirements. Portions of the
existing facility where the emission rate is expected to increase
as a result of the proposed modification should be modeled at the
allowable emission rate. Finally, background point sources 1)
having already received their construction permit but not yet in
operation, or 2) with less than two years, of operational history,
should also be modeled at their allowabl emission rate.
Of course, an analysis which demonstrates no contravention
of the standards, based entirely on maximum allowable emissions
rates (including full operation for the entire year) for all
modeled point sources is acceptable. If a violation of any NAAQS
is revealed by this type of analysis, then the adjustments
described above may be made in cases where it can be shown to the
satisfaction of the permit granting agency that historical
operating levels and/or operating factors will be representative
of future conditions. -
This use of Table 9-1 of the GAQM for accomplishing the
required PSD NAAQS analysis will supersede the various procedural
interpretations presently being applied. Since different
procedures are currently in use, we believe that it is necessary
to provide a grace period for implementing the required
procedure. Consequently, modeling analyses for any PSD
application submitted to the reviewing agency on or after
October 1, 1989 should be based on legally allowable emissions or
must use the model emission input data requirements contained in
Table 9-1 of the GAQM as clarified above for PSD purposes.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
New Source Review Contacts
Regional Modeling Contacts
E. Lillis
3. Tikvart
T. Helms
B. Bauman

-------
-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
It
22 FEE 1989 PN
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance/on
Emission
FROM:
Ajr’ Quality Manai )
TO: David Kee, Director
Air & Radiation Division, Region V
This is in response to your memorandum of January 6, 1989, requesting
additional information on determining LAER. The following responses are in
the same order and format as the questions in your letter.
1. Economic Feasibility of LAER
Traditionally, little weight has been given to economics in LAER
determinations, and this continues to be the case. The extract in your
memorandum from the record of the House and Senate discussion of the Clean
Air Act (Act) contains the sentence:
“If the cost of a given control strategy is so great that
a new major source could not be built or operated, then
such a control would not be achievable and could not be
required by the Administrator.”
We interpret this statement in the record to be used in a generic sense.
That is, that no new plants could be built in that industry if emission
limits were based on levels achievable only with the subject control tech-
nology. However, if some other plant in the same (or comparable) industry
uses that control technology, then such use constitutes de facto evidence
that the economic cost.to the industry of that technology control is not
prohibitive. Thus, for a new source in that same industry, LAER costs should
be considered only to the degree that they reflect unusual circumstances
which, in some manner, differentiate the cost of control for that source from
the costs of control for the rest of that industry. These unusual circum-
stances should be thoroughly analyzed to ensure that they really do represent
compe1ling reasons for not requiring a level of control that similar sources
are using. Therefore, when discussing costs, applicants should compare the
cost of control for the proposed source to the costs for source(s) already
usingthat level of controL
ng Lowest Achievable

-------
2
a. You asked whether LAER for a coating operation would necessarily
require add—on controls if low solvent coatings are used which produce volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentrations of 20-100 ppm, and also whether LAER for
a boiler would be both low sulfur coal and scrubbing.
Your questions pose hypothetical issues of whether sources which have
selected fuels or process materials with inherently low emissions should be
forced to utilize add—on controls as well. It is difficult and potentially
misleading to respond to such hypothetical situations, since certain factors
not presented may alter the response (source type, pollutant, emission rate,
economics, etc). Nevertheless, the following generalizations can be made.
Sources are required to meet LAER as defined in the Act, which is
essentially a waste gas stream limit. For a coating operation, this may mean
low (or no) VOC solvent coatings, high transfer efficiencies, an add—on
control device on the gas stream, or some combination of these. Of course,
use of either of the first two will affect gas stream concentrations, which
in turn can influence decisions on whether additional control is needed to
meet the intent of LAER requirements. A LAER requirement for low sulfur
coal would depend, at least in part, on whether such fuel was available and
in use in the nonattainment area in question. A final determination depends
on the specific case.
b. You ask whether permit applicants can put air pollution control
costs “on the margin,” even though many other variables could affect project
viability, and whether States and Regions have the expertise needed to
adequately evaluate a claim of economic non—viability.
It is true that many permit applicants present the cost of emissions
controls as marginal costs and argue that they cannot afford such controls.
However, these issues were addressed in the April 22, 1987 memorandum on
determining best available control technology (BACT). 1 Since costs play less
of a role in LAER than in BACT determinations, we believe the issues are
adequately addressed in that memorandum, so we will not repeat them here.
2. Achievability of Existing State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Limitations
The most stringent emissions limitation contained in a SIP for a
class or category of source must be considered LAER, unless a) a more
stringent emissions limitation has been achieved in practice, or b) the
SIP limitation is demonstrated by the owner or operator of the proposed
source to be unachievable [ Act, section 171(3)].
1 ,Huntsville Incinerator - Determining BACT, from Gary McCutchen, CPDD,
to Bruce Miller, Region IV, dated April 22, 1987. [ See section 8.15
of the Ne i Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment Area Guidance Notebook.]

-------
3
There is, of course, a range of certainty in such a definition. The
greatest certainty for a proposed LAER limit exists when that limit is
actually being achieved by a source. However, a SIP limit, even if it has
not yet been applied to a source, should be considered initially to be the
product of careful investigation and, therefore, achievable. A SIP limit’s
credibility diminishes if a) no sources exist to which it applies; b) it is
generally acknowledged that sources are unable to comply with the limit, and
the State is in the process of changing the limit; or c) the State has
relaxed the original SIP limit. Case-by—case evaluations need to be made in
these situations to determine the SIP limit’s credibility.
The same logic applies to SIP limits to which sources are subject but
with which they are not in compliance. Noncompliance by a source with a SIP
limit, even if it is the only source subject to that specific limit, does not
automatically constitute a demonstration that that limit is unachievable.
The specific reasons for noncompliance must be determined, and the ability of
the source to comply assessed. However, such noncompliance may prove to be
an indication of nonachievability, so the achievability of such a SIP
limitation should be carefully studied before it is used as the basis of a
LAER determination.
3. LAER and Performance Specifications
Your question about the use of company-mandated product specifications
(for coatings) in determining LAER for sources of VOC is too hypothetical to
address, given various site-specific factors that could exist. Each case must
attempt to differentiate between product (and materials) specifications that
are simply desired by an applicant (which would generally not be considered
relevant) and specifications that are required (e.g., an industry standard).
However, your interpretation of my August 29 memorandum is correct, in that a
permit applicant would have to demonstrate that the presumptive LAER could
not be met by some other combination of coatings, transfer efficiency, and
add-on control.
4. If Presumptive LAER Cannot be Achieved
We generally concur with your requirement that where a presumptive
SIP-based LAER is not achievable, the applicant must meet the more stringent
of the two limits defined in your memorandum. However, case-by-case factors
may also affect the decision.
Please contact Gary McCutchen (FTS 629-5592) if you have any questions
on the information provided in this memorandum and Allen Basala (FTS 629-5622)
if you need assistance in evaluating the economics of specific permit
applications.
cc: A. Basala 1. Helms
E. LillisV R. Biondi
G. McCutchen G. Foote
E. Noble

-------
. 1tO ST 4 , ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PN 165-89-02-15-037
FEB 1 5 989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Early Delegation of Authority for the
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Increments Program
FROM: / Gerald A. Ernison, Director’ - , .
Office of Air Ouality Planning and S ndards
TO: Louis F. Gitto, Director
Air Management Division, Region I
This is in response to your menorandum of December 23, 1988 to
Don Clay, in which you requested guidance on the procedures to be followed
in advancinc the effective date of 41) CFR Part 52 for the NO 2 prevention of
significant deterioration (PSO) increments to enable States seeking delega-
tion of authority to implement the NO 2 increments prior to November 17, 1990.
Specifically, you requested guidance on two questions:
I. How do States with delegated authority initiate the process of
advancing the general effective date of 40 CFR 52.21?
2. What are the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
rulemaking procedures for carrying out a State’s request?
As you noted in your memorandun, the preamble to the NO 2 increments
regulation promulgated on October 17, 1988, gave delegated States the
opportunity to request authority to implement the requirements of the NO 2
increments regulation as early as the effective date of the 40 CFR 51.166
regulation (October 17, 1989). Otherwise, the NO 2 increment requirements
do not become effective in delegated States until 25 months after
promulgation (November 17, 1990).
The Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) have jointly developed the procedures
outlined herein for advancing the date at which delegated States can assume
responsibility for implementing the NO 2 increment requirements. This
explanation should answer your snecific Questions regarding the procedures
to use.

-------
2
In answer to your first question, a State desiring delegation of the
N02 increment provisions of the revised 40 CFR Part 52 PSD program must
submit an amended PSD delegation agreement to its Region for review and
approval. The form of this proposed amendment may follow that of the PSD
delegation agreement now in force. It should contain an explanation of how
the State plans to meet the new NO 2 increment requirements. In particular,
it must demonstrate that the State has adequate legal authority under State
law to accept the delegation. Also, the amended delegation agreement must
address how increment consumed since the February 8, 1988 baseline date will
be determined and possible exceedances corrected, and how increment consump-
tion in the future will be tracked. In addition, in accordance with the
discussion in the preamble to the final rule (53 FR 40659), the amended
delegation agreement or an accompanying document must contain a stipulation
by the appropriate State official that the State does not intend to submit
the necessary Part 51 SIP revisions within 21 months of the promulgation of
the NO 2 increment regulations. Such a stipulation would not, however,
prevent the State from later changing its mind and submitting Part 51
revisions within the allotted time.
Some States may not be able to demonstrate adequate legal authority
under State law to accept delegation. For example, a State may be prohibited
from adopting any rule more stringent than EPA ’s, and this could be
interpreted by the State to preclude accepting delegation of EPA rules which,
although they have been promulgated, are not yet in effect. There is no
mechanism ava ilable to EPA to enable such States to adopt the NO 2 increments
prior to EPA’s effective date.
As to the second question, when an acceptable application for early
delegation has been received from a State, the Region should place a
direct—final notice in the Federal Register , unless it anticipates adverse
public comment. Although Headquarters’ review of NO 2 PSD SIP revisions is
not required, we would be willing (and OGC would like) to review at least
the first of these notices. The notice should explain that the effective
date of 40 CFR Part 52 is being advanced for that State as provided for in
EPA’s promulgation of the NO 2 increments regulation. An accompanying
revision to the Part 52 subpart for the State in question should provide
that: “The provisions of section 52.21 (b) through (w), including revisions
promulgated on October 17, 1988, at 53 FR 40671, are hereby incorporated and
made a part of the applicable State plan for the State of ___________•1
Regardless of whether a State desires delegation of the NO 2 increment
regulations prior to (or on) the general effective date of the revised
40 CFR 52.21, the Region should use that opportunity to review the current
delegation and revise it, as appropriate, to ensure consistency with EPA
policies.
If you have any questions about the guidance provided in this
memorandum, please contact Eric Noble at FTS 629-5362, Gary ticCutchen at
FIS 629-5592, or Greg Foote at FIS 382-7625.

-------
3
cc: D. Clay
E. Claussen
G. Foote
E. Lulls
G. McCutchen
E. Noble
Air Division Director, Regions II—X

-------
PM 165-88—10-14-036
,r ’° S 4j 1
tt
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
‘4, WASHC GTCN C 2O46
& a . t
OCT 14 88
T 4 £ Mtp ST ATO
Mr. John W. Boston
Vice President
Wisconsin Electric Power Ce7r pany
Pest Office Box 3046
Milwaukee, Wisce aj 52301
Dear Mr. Boston:
As you requested in ourmeetjnq on September 15, 19B8, I
have made final determinations regarding the applicability Of the
Clean Air Act’s New Source Performance Standards (NS?2) and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSP) requirements to the
proposed life exte sien project at the Port Washington steam
electric generating station, which is ownid and operated by
Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO). Per the reasons
discussed below, I hav, determined that, as proposed, the
renovations at Port Washington are subject to both PSD and NSPS
requir.me t . However, EPA remain, willing to work with you
regarding methods of compliance. As we have di eussed, one
alternative would be to reconfigure the project such that no
emissions increases would occur. My staff is ready to meet with
you to discus. these matters at any time.
I.
On September 13, 1988, David 7 ,,, Director 1 Air and
Radiation Division, ZPA Region V, wrote you regarding PSD and
NSPB coverage of the Port Washington renovation.. Enclosed with
that letter was a memorandum dated September 9, 1988 from Don R.
Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator, addressing the background
of the Port Washington project, and analyzing at some length the
relevant interpreta jv t suee. Tor purposes of brevity, I will
not repeat that material here, but rather incorporate it by
reference.
The September document, concluded that the life extension
project, as proposed, j ely would be subject to ?SD and NSPS
r.quirements. Eow,v.r’, SPA also stated that final applicability
determinations could not be provided at that time in the absence
of certain factual information. In our subsequent meeting you
requested that EPA furnish final determinations, and egr..d to
provide the necessary additional information. You also ai)ced EPA
to reconsider certain of the conclusion, in Don Clay’i
nt .morandux . These matters are diecus ed below.
1 - — o -9- 3

-------
—2—
II. FINAL DETE i INATIQNs
Your staff ha. responded to our requests for add .tiona1
information, and I wa to thank you for WEPCO’s continued
cooperation in doing 10. Based on this, and the other
information in EPA’s files, I now make the following final
determinations:
(1) The life extension project, as proposed, will render
WEPCO’s Port Washington plant subject to the PSD r.quiremenes of
Part C of the Clôan Air Act as a major modification within the
meaning of the L t and the EPA regulations at 40 C.F.P . 1 52.21.
(2) Th. proposed life extens .en project will render each of
th. five steam gsn.rating unite at the Port Washington plant
subject to the NSPS requirements of section 111. of the Clean Air
Act as a modification within the meaning of the Act and the EPA
regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 60.
In reconsidering the memorandum and letter of September 9
and 12, I have taken a careful look at the issues you raised in
our meeting: whether the renovations are routine; whether EPA
has treated similar projects in a different fashion; and whether
there would be an emissions increase du. to a physical or
operational change. Mowever, I find no reason to depart fr mn the
reasoning of the September 4ocuii ents. Accordingly, I conclude
that WEPCO’a life extension project. i’ carried out as proposed,
will involve a substantial end non-routine renewal of the Port
Washington facilities that will s gnificant1y increase both
hourly maximum and annual emissions of air pollutants.
Specifically, regarding the nature of the proposed work at
Port Washington, I find that these renovations constitute
physical changes f or pen purpose. within the meaning of 40 C.F.R.
1 52.21(b) (2) Ci), and physical and operational changes for NSPS
purposes within the meaning of 40 C.F.k. $ 60 ,14(a). I find
further that thes, changes do not come within the PSD and HSPS
exclusions for routine maintenance, repair, and replacement, nor
the exclusions for increases in production rate or hours of
operation. (Se. 40 c.v. . ii 52.21(b) (2) (iii) and 60.14(e)).
egardirig the emissions changes from the life exteusion
project, based upon the emissions data and certain factual
assertions submitted by WEPCO, I find that the Port Washington
renovations will result in a significant net increase in
emissions of seveza . pollutant, for PSD purposes within the
meaning of 40 C.?.R. S 52.2i.(b)(2)(i), (b)(3), and (b)(21). I
find further that the renovations will result in an increase in
the emission rate of several pollutants at each of unite 1—5 for
NSPS purposes within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. 1 60.14(a) and (b).

-------
--
..:
—3—
Enclosures A and B detail the emissions changes underlying
these findings for PBD end NSPS purposes. As indicated above,
EPA’S calculations and determinations are based on data supplied
by WEPCO. V. will use the data in Enclosures A and B in the
event you would like to work with us to •.tablish an acceptable
arrangement for satisfying PSD and NSPS requirements through the
addition or enhancement of pollution control •quipmsnt. physical
capacity restrictions, or, in the case of PSD, federally
enforceable limitations on potential emissions.
III. DISCUS$ION
As you requested, I have reconsidered the question
of whether the physical and operational changes at Port
Washington are routine, whether applying PSD and N$PS here would
be inequitable in light of EPA’s past treatment of renovation
projects, and whether the renovations will result in emissions
increases. This, matters ax, addressed below, as is EPA’.
reasoning with respect to the baselines for calculating the PS
and NSPS emissions increases reflected in Enclosures A and 5.
Regarding the question of routineneas, the renovations
involv, th. replacement of steam drums, air heaters, and other
major components that are integral to the continued operation of
the source. The work will not simply maintain th. facilities in
their current state but rather will significantly •n iance their
present efficiency and capacity, and substantially extend tbsir
useful economic life. In addition, the work called for here is
rarely, if ever, performed. Moreover, this work is costly, both
in relative and abso]ut. term.. Based on thee. and other
factors, I reaffirm Don Clay’s findings on the non-routine
character of the Pert Washington changes. Tb. September 9
memorandwn contains a complet. discussion of EPA’. reasoning on
this issue.
On the related equity question, I find no inconsistency her.
with EPA’S prior determinations regarding routine and non—routine
changes. I note initially that PSD and N8PS applicability
determinations are made on a case—by-ease baits. Thus, it is
very difficult to analogize to other projects, which almost
inevitably present significant factual differences.
Nevertheless, my staff has reviewed the additional material you
submitted on September 2.9, and September 27, 1988 regarding
certain other renovation projects, and has informally surveyed
EPA Regional Offices and state agencies.
I have concluded that none of the four steam drum
replacements L.ntjfjed in your September 19 submission are
sufficiently s mi1ar to the Port Washington project to support
determinations of nonapplicabiljty in this matter. The Carolina

-------
L . .‘
P.
—4—
Power and Light case involved a faulty steam drum replac.d prior
to th. initial start—up of a n.y unit, and would not have
increased emissions for PSD or NSPS purposes. The Great Western
Sugar example did not involve a utility boiler, and was too small
to be affected by NSPS. Th. Ashland Oil facility was not at a
utility, involved a waste heat boiler that was not fossil—fuel
fired, and hence, was not an emissions unit subject to PSD or
N5PS. The Algema Steel Co. facility was not a utility boiler,
and not located in the United States.
In addition, the informal survey conducted by the Office of
Air and Radiation disclosed no closely analogous cases that were
ever eviewsd by EPA headquart.r. for purposes of PSD or NBPS
applicability, In particular, EPA found no examples of steam
drum replacement at aged •l.ctric generating facilities.
Moreovsr, EPA could find no examples in which the Agency had
analyzed and issued an applicability determination for a W 1 jf 0
extension project” for any category of major source. Regarding
the four utility projects identified in your September 27
submission, I not. that they do not involve steam drum
replacement. Zn addition, permit application. were not submitted
to the state agencies for the Duke Power and Texas Utilities
projects you cit.. Consequently, they were not reviewed by any
air pollution control agency. The Cincinnati Gas and Electric
project was reviewed by the state, but not EPA. The state
determined, and EPA Region II concurred, that the Hydraco
Enterprii.s project was not subject to PSD based en a net
decrease in emissions of all pollutants. Our informal survey and
review of the project . you iderttifisd reveal that major
construction activities undertaken by utilities that may be
subject to Clean Air Act requirements hay, not been brought to
the attention of EPA. The Agency is considering what steps may
be necessary to address this situation.
EPA has discovered only two state agency determinations
addressing life extension question. in a aann•r possibly
inconsistent with EPA’s analysis of the Port Washington project.
These instances, which apparently wars not brought to EPA’s
attention prior to the states determination, do not create an
inequity that would justify a different conclusion by EPA in this
case.
As to the question of emissions increases at Port
Washington, I believe that EPA has properly interpreted the PSD
and NSPS regulations as applying to increases in emissions due to
increases in hours of operation or production rate, where, as
here, such operational or production increases are closely
related t’ physical or operational changes. A contrary
interpretation would allow even massive emission, increases
stemming from significant new capital investment —— as
distinguished from routine fluctuations in the business cycle —-

-------
L.. —
—5—
to escape scrutiny under the Clear Air Act simply because the new
investment did net involve an inherently mere polluting
production process. I do not believe that Congress intended such
a result.
I would like to point out that the figures on emissions
increases in Enclosures A and B reflect my conclusions regarding
the proper points in time from which to calculate emissions
ehangee. For P8D , I have determined under 40 C.F.P.. I
52.21(b) (21) (ii) that the two—year period of 1.983 and 2.984 ——
prier to th. source curtailment. due to discovery of cracks in
the rear steam rums —— are more re;r.s.ntattve of normal source
operations than the most recent two-year period. Thi, conclusion
ii appropriate in light of WEPCO’a historical operations.
As to USPS, thsr. is no “representative emissions ” concept
under that program. Rather, under the circumstances presented by
this case, the baseline emission rates for units l— are
determined by hourly aximum capacity just prior to the
renovations. At this time, EPA is relying on the actual
operating data you submitted to determine current maximum
capacity. Although EPA is certainly open to further discustiion
on this point, the information contained in your September 27 and
October 2.l 1988 submissions is inadequate to support VEPCO’s
assertions that higher-than-actual capacities could be schieved
on an economically sustainable basis. For example, you indicate
that operation at higher levels at units 2-4 “could increase
equipment deterioration thus causing further damage.” Regarding
Unit 5, you state that “safety concerns” dictated the decision to
shut down that unit. Based on this information, we are unable to
rely on WEPCO’s statements as to maximum “achievable” capacity in
determining th. emission. changes at each of these units. Thus,
for example in th. c i i. of unit 5, the current capacity :1.1st be
regarded es zero.
IV. C0NCLdJSIO
In adopting the PSD and NSPS programs, Congress thtend.d to
address the typ. of long-term capital investments in pollution—
emitting facilities at issu. in the Port Washington life
extension project. Thus, a. proposed, these renovations would be
subject to the requirements of both programs. However, as
indicated above, ay staff remains ready to work closely with
%(EPCO to discuss specific pollution control equipment end
permitting measures that would minimize th. cost to W!PCO of
complying with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. I have
asked Don Clay to work with you in seeking a final resolution of
the complianc, issues by December 1..

-------
‘)c 17 1 E — P.7
—6—
Again, thank you for your cooperation in thu ‘atter.
Sinc.rely,
L.a N. ?bo aa
Encloiur..
cc: 8.nator Robert W. asten, Jr.
Reprs..ntattve F. James $en..nbr.n.nez, Jr.
Don Clay, gpA (ANR—445)
David i.e , Air & Radiation Div., Region V

-------
Enclosure A
PS Applicability
Port Washington Power Plant Renovation Project
(all emi sione calculations are in tona p.r year)
Actual Nat PSD S bj
Emissions Potential Em asionS t PE
2o11 itant Baseline (11. g i sions (2) Incr e as4 Level
Total suspended 170 283 (3) 108 25
particulate
Sulfur dioxide 24236 52,621 (3) 28,385 40 Y
Nitrogen oxides 2,991 8,201 5,210 40 yes
Carbon monoxide 144 397 253 100
Hydrocarbon 17 47 30 40
R ryllium 0.0016 0.005 0.0034 0.0004
brides 38 98 60 3 yes
N0TE PSD applicability for the other PSD regulated pollutants listed
-at 40 CFR ec 1Ofl 52.21 (b)(23)(i) and (ii) has not beer.
dater in.d at .this ti:e.
1) Averag. emissions for two-year period defined by calendar years 1983
and 1984.
2) As ca1c i1ated by WEPCO based on 1992 coal type, actual emissions
after tSP, end an annual capacity utilization factor of 90%.
3) An EPA estimate of potential emissions, based on existing fedarally
enforceable limits (L.a., applicable SIP), ay be higher. The
indicated P80 applicability determination would, however, not
change.

-------
5
Enclosure 3
NSPS Applicability
Port tlashington Power Pla.nt Renovation Project
F JLL L0 D EMISSIONS AT CURR T CkPACITY
(BEFORE RWOVATIO fl
UNIT-i UNIT-2 t1NIT-3 tJNIT-4 tJWIT-5
502 (L3S/HR) 1417 1828 2043 1560 —0—
PM (LBS/KR) 15 12 12 —0—
NOx (LBS/HR) 480 352 289 221 —0—
FULL LOAD E 1ISSIO S AT FUTURE CAPACITY
(AFTER RENOVATION)
UNIT-i tTN’IT-2 UNIT-3 UNIT-4 UNIT-S
____—_
302 (LBS/KR) 2046 2037 2088 2269 2695
P11 (L3S/HR) 16 16 12 17 15
NOx (LBS/KR) 696 392 297 316 369
5U TECT TO NSPS (AlTER RENOVATION)
UNIT-i tJNIT-2 UNIT-3 UNIT-4 UNIT-S
______ —
$02 (LBS/KR) YESCa) TES(a) YESCa) YES(a) YES
PM (LBS/KR) YES (b) NO MO YES (b) YES
NOx (L3S/I R) YESc) Y!5(c) YE5(c) YE5(c) YZS(c)
Notes:
(a) With lees add-on control than NSPS requirement, emissions
(lb/hr) would not increase and NSPS would not apply.
(b) Because oi planned ES? upgrade, PM emissions (lb/?*1 Etu)
after renovation are expected to be less than N5PS requirement.
However, N$PS would require CEMS for opacity.
Cc) Because arc1 - jred boilers are used at Port Washington,
current MOx emissions (lb/ ’24 Btu) are expected to be less than
NSPS requirements. However, NSPS would require a CEMS for NOx.

-------
PN 165-88—09-09-035

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
‘p
4 1 t
SEP 9 i988
oy, ao
MEMORANDUM S AL&A DP.AD1A11ON
SUBJECT: Applicability of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSO)
and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Requirements to
the Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WEPCO) Port Washington
Life Extension Project
FROM: Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: David A. Kee, Director
Air aiid Radiation Division, Region V
This is in further response to your March 25, 1988 memorandum requesting
guidance on PSD applicability regarding the proposed renovation of the Port
Washington Power Plant by the WEPCO. I have also addressed the question
ihether the renovations proposed for this facility would subject the individual
inits to Subpart Da of the NSPS.
Based on the information presented in your memorandum, subsequent written
information received from WEPCO, information provided by the State of Wisconsin,
and other information contained in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
files on this matter, I have concluded that, as proposed, this renovation
project would not come within the PSD and NSPS exclusions for routine mainte-
nance, repair, and replacement, nor the exclusions for increases in production
rate or hours of operation. It also appears that the project would increase
emissions within the meaning of these two programs. Thus, the renovation
project likely would be subject to PSD review as a major modification of an
existing stationary source and that the renovations proposed for units 1—5 at
this facility probably would subject the individual units to Subpart Da of the
NSPS as a modification. However, WEPCO has not yet requested EPA to make an
applicability determination. In any case, it would not be possible to make
final applicability determinations at tnis po nt, for three basic reasons.
First, EPA must be supplied sufficient data regarding the various
pollutants emitted by the Port Washington faci1ities to determine, on a
pollutant—specific basis, how the proposed renovations would affect emissions
levels. Second, WhPCO might avoid both PSD and NSPS applicability by adding
or enhancing pollution contr3l equipment, or in the case of P50, restricting

-------
-2-
operations below maximum potential such that the emissions increases necessary
to trigger applicability would not occur. The WEPCO should discuss its plans
in this regard with EPA. Third, reyardiny NSPS applicability to unit 1,
additional information is necessary to determine whether a physical or
operational change would occur.
Thus, although this memorandum will serve to answer many of the questions
necessary to reaching final determinations, you should advise WEPCO that
ultimately applicability depends upon changes in emissions after the renova-
tions and whether the company decides to take the steps which would enable it
to lawfully avoid coveraye. Also, NSPS coverage of unit 1 can only be deter-
mined after an evaluation of the additional information regarding the work to
be performed. In addition, as to NSPS, WEPCO should be adv.ised to submit a
tormal request pursuant to 40 CFR 60.5 if it desires a final applicability
determi nati on.
As the need for further factual development here suggests, determinations
of PSD and NSPS applicability are fact-specific, and must be made on a case-by-
case basis. This memorandum provides a framework for analyzing the proposed
changes at Port Washington and gives EPA’s views on relevant issues of leyal
interpretation. It should also be useful in assessing other so—called “life
extension” projects in the future. However, any such project would need to be
reviewed in light of all the facts and circumstances particular to it. Thus,
a final decision regarding PSD and NSPS applicability here would not
necessarily be determinative of coverage as to other life extension projects.
If you have any further questions regardiny the discussion or conclusions
in this memorandum, please have your staff contact David Solomon of the New
Source Review Section at FTS 629-5375.
I. Background
As mentioned in your March 25 request, the five coal-fired units at Port
Washington began operation in 1935, 1943, 1948, 1949, and 1950, respectively.
Each unit was initially rated at 80 megawatts electrical output capacity. In
recent years, however, the performance of the units began to deteriorate due to
age-related degradation of the physical plant. In particular, inspections
performed by a WEPCO consultant in 1984 revealed extensive cracks originating
from the internal surfaces of the rear steam drums and boiler bank boreholes in
units 2, 3, 4, and 5, creating significant safety concerns. Because of these
safety concerns and other age—related problems, in 1985 the operating levels
of units 2, 3, and 4 were reduced, and unit S was removed from service. As a
result of the plant’s deteriorating condition, the maximum rated physical
capacities of units 1, 2, 3, and 4 at this time are 45, 65, 75, and 55
megawatts, respecti’cly.

-------
-3-
The life extension project includes extensive capital improvements to
the common facilities and each of the individual units, including replacement
of the rear steam drum in units 2, 3, 4, and 5. The renovation work will
restore the physical and operational capability of each unit to its original
80 megawatt nameplate capacity, and extend the useful hfe of the units well
beyond the planned retirement dates that would otherwise apply. Upon comple-
tion of the project, WEPCO intends to substantially increase the actual
operations at the Port Washinyton plant.
II. PSD Applicability
The life extension project at Port Washington is subject to preconstruction
review and permitting under the Act’s PSO provisions if it is a “major modifica-
tion” within the meaning of the Act and EPA’s regulations. The PSD regulations
at 40 CFR 52.21 govern this determination because Wisconsin has been delegated
PSD permitting authority under the provisions of 52.21(u). The definition of
“major modification” in 52.21(b)(2)(i) requires an analysis of several tactors.
These factors may be grouped under two yeneral questions. Wifl the work
entail a “physical change in or change in the method of operation ot a major
stationary source”? If so, will the change “result in a significant net
emissions increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act” [ see
52.21(b)(2)(i)]? The Port Washington facility is an existing major stationary
source because it emits well in excess of the P50 threshold amount for several
pollutants.
A. Physical Change or Change in the Method of Operation
This requirement of a major modification is satisfied if either a physical
or operational change would occur.
1. Physical Change
The renovation work called for under the proposed life extension project
at Port Washington would constitute a “physical change” at a major stationary
source. The clear intent of the PSD regulations is to construe the term
“physical change” very broadly, to cover virtually any significant alteration
to an existing plant. This wide reach is demonstrated by the very narrow
exclusion provided in the regulations: other than certain uses of alternate
fuels not relevant here, only “routine maintenance, repair and replacement”
is excluded from the definition of physical change [ see 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(a)].
In determining whether proposed work at an existing facility is “routine,”
EPA makes a case-by—case determination by weighing the nature, extent, purpose,
frequency, and cost of the work, as well as other relevant factors, to arrive
at a common—sense finding. In this case, all of these factors suggest that the
work required under WEPCO’s life extension project appears not to be “routine.”
The available information indicates that the work proposed at Port Washington
is far from being a regular, customary, or standard undertaking for the purpose

-------
-4-
of maintaining the plant in its present condition. Rather, this is a
highly unusual, if not unprecedented, and costly project. Its purpose is to
completely rehabilitate aging power generating units whose capacity has
significantly deteriorated over a perioa of years, thereby restoring their
original capacity and substantially extending the period of their utilization
as an alternative to retiring them as they approach the end of their useful
physical and economic life. The most important factors that would support
these conclusions are outlined below.
a. The project would involve thereplacement of numerous major components.
The information submitted by WEPCO shows that the company intends to replace
several components that are essential to the operation of the Port Washington
plant. In particular, as noted above, WEPCO would replace the rear steam
drums on the boilers at units 2, 3, 4, and 5. According to WEPCO, these steam
drums are a type of wheaderu for the collection and distribution of st’ am
and/or water within the boilers. They measure 60 feet long, 50.5 inches in
diameter, and 5.25 inches thick, and their replacement is necessary to continue
operation of the units in a safe condition. In addition, at each of the
emissions units, WEPCO plans to repair or replace several other integral
components, including replacement of the air heaters at units 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The WEPCO also plans to renovate major mechanical and electrical auxiliary
systems and common plant support facilities. The WEPCO intends to perform
the work over a 4—year period, utilizing successive 9-month outages at each
unit.
In its July 8, 1987 application for authority to renovate to the Public
Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC), WEPCO described the life extension
project and explained its purpose and necessity. The WEPCO took care to
distinguish the proposed renovation work from routine maintenance that did
not require PSC approval, explaining that:
[ work items] falling into the category of repetitive
maintenance that are normally performed during scheduled
equipment outages do not require specific commission a 1 .proval
and, accordingly, are not included in this application.
Thus, WEPCO’s own earlier characterization of this project supports a
finding that the planned renovations are not routine.
b. The purpose of the project is to significantly enhance the present
efficiency and capacity ot the plant and substantially extend its useful
economic life. In its application to the PSC, WEPCO pointed out that due to
age—related deterioration, total plant capability had declined by 40 percent.
The company noted that the currently planned retirement dates for the Port
Washington units, as set forth in its Advance Plan filed with the State,
ranged from 1992 to 1999. However, WEPCO asserted that “extensive renovation
of the five units and the plant common facilities is needed if operation of
the plant is to be continued.” In any event, WEPCO stated that the renovation
work would allow the Port Washington plant to generate power at its designed
capacity until the year 2010, and thus “represents a life extension of the
units.

-------
—5-
In contrast, in its July 29, 1988 letter to EPA headquarters (pages.. 9-13),
WEPCO characterized the renovation work as the timely, routine correction ot
equipment problems--principally, the steam drum cracks. However, the informa-
tion presented leads to the Conclusion that this is not the case. While
replacement of the steam drums is necessary to restore lost generating
capacity, that is not the only work proposed to be done. Based upon maximum
capacity figures for past years, it appears that the units had experienced
deterioration in physical generating capacity even prior to the discovery of
the steam drum cracks in 1984. Thus, WEPCO proposes a wide-ranging project
encompassing a broad array of tasks that would not Only correct the steam
drum problem, but correct other aye-related deterioration that is essentially
independent of the steam drums. Such other work (e.g., replacement or air
handlers) apparently is also necessary as a practical matter to restore
original nameplate capacity. Thus, it appears that even if WEPCO had under-
taken this renovation work ininediately following discovery of the steam drum
cracks, it would have been proper to characterize the proposed work as a
nonroutirie life extension project.’
c. The work called for under the project is rarely, if ever, pertormed.
The WEPCO’s application to the PSC asserted that the work to be performed
under the life extension project was not frequently done:
Generally, the renovation work items included in this
application are those that would normally occur only
once or twice during a unit’s expected life cycle.
The EPA asked WEPCO to submit information regarding the frequency of
replacement of steam drums, the largest category of work item called for
under the project. WEPCO reported that to date, no steam drums have ever
been replaced at any of its coal-fired electrical generating facilities.
--WEPCO did pc t ut that it had replaced other “headers” comparable in design
pressure and fun,ction. However, the largest of these was 16 inches in
1 It is important to note in this regard that not all renovation,
repair, or “life extension” projects would properly be characterized as
modifications potentially subject to PSD and NSPS. For example, nonroutine
repairs to correct unexpected equipment outages, even of major components
such as steam drums, would not be subject to tISPS if they did not increase
the maximum capacity of the affected facility as it existed prior to the
outage. Conversely, undertaking a program of repair and maintenance
properly characterized as routine would not subject a facility to the Act’s
requi rements.

-------
-6-
diameter, and EPA does not believe that they are comparable in diameter, wall
thickness, function, or importance to the rear steam drums at Port Washington. 2
d. The work called for under the project is costly, both in relative
and absolute terms. The latest information supplied by WEPCO is that the
renovation work at Port Washington will cost 87.5 million, of which at least
$45.6 million is designated as capital costs.’ The WEPCO reports that, in
terms of annualized costs, the renovation project will cost $7.8 million, as
compared to $51.6 million for a new 400 megawatt plant. Thus, renovation
costs represent approximately 15 percent of replacements costs.
2. Change in the Method of Operation
The renovation work at Port Washington would not constitute a “change
in the method of operation” within the meaning of the PSD regulations.
However, it is clear that the “physical change” and “operational change”
components of the “major modification” definition are discrete and independent.
Thus, as explained below, P50 still applies if there is a physical change that
will significantly increase net emissions.
In addition, the regulations exclude from the definition of physical or
operational change “an increase in the hours of operation or in the proauction
rate” [ see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(f)]. The preamble to the rule [ 45 FR b2676,
52704 (August 7, 1980)], makes it clear that this exclusion is intended to
allow a company to lawfully increase emissions through a simple change in
hours or rate of operation up to its potential to emit (unless already subject
2 The WEPCO’s July 29, 1988 letter to EPA stated (on page 13) that after
further investigation, the company “learned of several examples” of steam drum
failure and replacement. However, WEPCO provides no further details, other
than noting that in one instance, the drum failed during initial testing and
was replaced. Replacement of a failed component at a new facility presumably
would not increase emissions from the facility, and probably would be viewed
as routine if the alternative was to forego operation of that new facility.
Under such circumstances, it is unlikely that the replacement would trigger
the Act’s requirements.
3 The WEPCO’s July 8, 1987 application to the PSC included a project
cost estimate of $83.9 million, of which $45.6 million was designated as
capital costs. A more recent cost estimate provided to EPA by WEPCO indicates
that several work items are now deemed unnecessary, such that the cost of the
original project is now estimated at $70.5 million. However, all but $89,000
of these reductions are designated as “maintenance” items. The recent submis-
sion also relates that the scope of the original project has now been expanded
to include flue gas conditioning equipment and associated air heater work
costing approximately $17 million. Although WEPCO has not broken down these
additional costs into capital and maintenance (or “expense”) expenditures, it
would appear that most, if not all, of this additional work would be classified
as capital costs. Thus, it is highly likely that actual capital costs would
be significantly hiyher than $45.6 million.

-------
—7—
to any federally enforceable hmit) without having to Obtain a PSO permit.
Thus, emissions increases at Port Washington associated with increased opera-
tions would not, st.andlng alone, subject WEPCO to PSD requirements. However,
as discussed in greater detail below, the exclusion for increases in hours of
operation or production rate does not take the project beyond the reach of
PSD coverage if those increases do not stand alone but rather are associated
with non-excluded physical or operational changes.
In its March 17, 1988 letter to Region V and its July 29, 1988 letter
to EPA Headquarters, WEPCO asserted that the exclusion for increases in
operational hours or production rate also would serve to render PSD review
not applicable to the renovation work proposed at Port Washington because the
project’s purpose was to restore the original design capacity of 80 megawatts
per unit, but not to exceed that level. However, a plant’s original design
capacity is irrelevant to a determination of PSD applicability.
B. Significant Net Emissions Increase
Under the PSD regulations, whether the life extension project at Port
Washington would result in a “significant net emissions increase” depends on
a comparison between the “actual emissions” before and after the physical
changes resulting from the renovation work. Where, as here, the source has
not yet begun operations following the renovation, “actual emissions”
following the renovation are deemed to be the source’s “potential to emit”
[ see 40 CFR 52.21(b)(21)(jvfl . Apparently, there woulu be a “slyniticant net
emissions increase” within the meaning of the PSD reyulations as a result of
the proposed renovations as currently planned, because potential emissions
after the proJect- ref1ectjng the restoration of 80 megawatt capacity at each
unit-—would greatly exceed representative actual emissions prior to the
physical changes. (The fact that the project is intended to restore the
plant’s original design capacity is irrelevant to that calculation.) 4 If
this is so, the project would be a “major modification” subject to PSO review.
However, PSD applies on a pollutant-specific basis, and EPA has not been
furnished with adequate data regarding the Impact of the proposed renovations
on the various pollutants to determine whether a significant net emissions
increase would indeed occur for any pollutant. Such data must be provided
before EPA can make a final determination of P50 applicability.
4 rhe WEPCO also contends (July 29, 1988 letter, page 35) that EPA
Should instead compare representative actual emissions prior to the change
with “projected” actual emissions after the renovations. The PSD regulations
provide no support for this view. Where, as here, a source is not currently
subject to a PSD permit containing operational limitations, EPA must presume
that the source will operate at its maximum capacity and, hence, its maximum
potential to emit. However, as discussed below, a source is entitled to
reduce its potential to emit by embodying its “projections” of future emis-
sions in federally enforceable restrictions on its operations that may serve
to lawfully avoid P 50 review.

-------
It is important to note in this reyard that WEPCO, at its option, could
“net out” ot PSD review by accepting federally enforceable restrictions on
its potential to emit after the renovation. This could occur through
enhancement of existing pollution control equipment, addition of new equip-
ment, acceptance of federally enforceable operational restrictions, or some
combination of these measures, limiting potential emissions to a level not
significantly greater than representative actual emissions prior to the
renovations. Theoretically, WEPCO could minimize the needed restrictions on
its potential to emit following the renovations if it could show that some
period other than the most recent two years is “more representative of normal
source operation” [ see 52.21(b)(21)(ii)]. (Obviously, such a showing would
be most important with respect to unit 5, because it has been shut down and
has had zero emissions since 1985.) Since these matters are within WEPCO’s
control, you should advise the company to enter discussions with Region V and
Wisconsin, as appropriate, if WEPCO desires to “net out” of PSD review.
The WEPCO also argued in its July 29, 1988 letter, at pages 33-41, that
even if EPA is correct that the Port Washington life extension project would
involve physical changes within the meaning of the PSO regulations, any
emissions increases would be due to increased production rates or hours of
operation rather than higher emissions per unit of production. Therefore,
WEPCO contends that these increases should be excluded from consideration in
determining whether a net significant emissions increase and, hence, a major
modification, would occur. The WEPCO is incorrect in this regard.
As noted above, the exclusions cited by WEPCO are intended to apply
where a source increases emissions by simply combusting a larger amount of
fuel, or processing a larger amount of raw materials during a given time
period, or by expanding its flours of operation “to take advantage of favorable
market conditions” (see 45 FR 52704). In this instance, however, it is
obvious that WEPCO’s plans to increase production rate or hours of operation
are inextricably intertwined with the physical changes planned under the life
extension project. Absent the extensive renovations proposed at Port
Washington, WEPCO would have little market incentive to, and in part would be
physically unable to, increase operations at these aged and deteriorated
facilities which, absent the renovations, would likely be retired from service
in the near future. Thus, WEPCO’s plans call for precisely the type of
“change in hours or rate or operation that would disturb a prior assessment
of a source’s environmental impact [ and] should have to undergo [ P50 review]
scrutiny” (see 45 FR 52704). Conversely, accepting WEPCO’s interpretation of
the major modification regulations would serve to exclude from consideration
all physical or operational changes except those which cause increased emis-
sions per unit of production. Clearly, EPA never intended this result. It
would allow, through substantial capital investment, significant expansion of
the pollution-emittin capacity and longevity of major industrial facilities
without P50 review of the impacts on air quality and opportunities for future
economic growth.

-------
-y -
C. Baseline Date
The November 9, 1987 letter from the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources to Region V asked whether a complete March 28, 1986 PSD permit
application for certain work at Port Washington triggered the PSD baseline
date, despite the fact that the permit was never issued. The answer to this
question is Baseline dates are triggered by the first complete applica-
tion and remain in effect regardless of whether the application is revised or
withdrawn, or whether the permit is finally issued and the source constructed
or modified.
III. NSPS Applicability
The Port Washington renovations are subject to the Act’s NSPS if they
constitute “modifications” within the meaning of section 111 ana 40 CFR Part 60.
Under 60.1, the NSPS applies to modifications at an “affected facility.” Each
unit at Port Washington is properly characterized as an “affected facility”
subject to the NSPS at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da, which applies to electric
utility steam generating units [ see 6 0.40(a)J. Pursuant to 60.14(a), a modifi-
cation for NSPS purposes is defined as “any physical or operational change to
an existing facility which results in an increase in the emission rate to the
atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies.” Increase in emission
rate is in turn defined as an increase in kilograms per hour (kg/hr) [ see
60.14(b)].
Pursuant to longstanding EPA interpretations, the emission rate before
and after a physical or operational change is evaluated at each unit by
comparing the hourly potential emissions under current maximum capacity to
emissions at maximum capacity after the change. In addition, under the Act’s
NSPS provisions, only physical limitations on maximum capacity are considered
in determining potential emissions at power plants. Thus, any prospective
changes in fuel or raw materials accompanying the physical or operational
change are not Considered in determining maximum capacity. Consequently,
60.l4(b)(2) requires that, in conducting emissions tests before and after a
change to determine whether an increase in emission rate has Occurred,
“operational parameters” which may affect emissions must be held constant.
Fuel and raw materials are “operational parameters” for this purpose.
Similarly, 6 0.14(e)(4) provides that use of an alternative fuel or raw
material which the existing facility was designed to accomodate before the
change would not be Considered a modification. Thus, for example, a physical
change which increases the maximum capacity of the facility would have a
corresponding increase in the sulfur dioxide emissions if the facility used
fuel with the same sulfur content before and after the change. Such a prospec-
tive increase cannot be offset by instead using fuel with a lower sulfur
content after the change, because, under the regulations, the facility would
always have the option of changing back to the higher sulfur-content fuel at
a later date without triggering a modification for NSPS purposes. However,
any offsetting reductions in emission rate caused by the concurrent addition
of pollution control equipment would be considered in determining whether a
physical or operational change results in an increase in emission rate.

-------
-10-
The WEPCO contends (July 29, 1988 letter, at pages 20-27) that baseline
capacity for the purpose of determininy whether an increase in emission rate
occurs for purposes of an NSPS modification is the original design capacity
of the facUlty. This is incorrect. The thrust of the NSPS modification
provisions is to compare actual maximum capacity before and after the change
in question. Thus, original design capacity is irrelevant. The provision in
40 CFR 60.l4(b)(2) for manual emission tests to determine whether an increase
has occurred clearly contemplates that tests will be done just prior to and
after the physical or operational change. The original design capacity of a
unit, to the extent it differs from actual maximum capacity at the time of
the test due to physical deterioration-—and, hence, derating--of the facility,
is immaterial to this calculation.
A. Physical or Operational Change
As with the Act’s PSD provisions, a modification occurs for NSPS purposes,
if there is either a physical or operational change [ see 40 CFR 60.14(a)).
1. Physical Change
As is the case under the PSD provisions, the proposed renovations at
Port Washington would constitute a physical change for NSPS purposes, at
least at units 2, 3, 4, and 5. The WEPCO would need to supply more informa-
tion, if EPA is to make a definitive determination as to unit 1.
The rear steam drums are part of the steam generating unit which
constitutes the Naffected facility” within the meaning of 40 CFR 60.41(a),
and the drum replacements at units 2, 3, 4, and 5 are integral to the planned
increase in maximum capacity, which is the purpose of the life extension
project. With respect to unit 1, other physical changes would increase_
maximum capacity from 45 to 80 megawatts. However, there is some question
whether those changes, in significant part, would occur at the steam generating
unit or will be limited to the turbine/generator set, which is not part ot
the affected facility. We suggest that you pursue this matter with WEPCO to
the extent necessary to determine NSPS applicability regarding unit 1.
As with PSO, the NSPS regulations exclude routine maintenance, repair,
and replacement [ see 60.14(e)(2)]. However, the renovations at the Port
Washington steam generating units are not routine for NSPS purposes for the
same reasons--detailed above--that they are not routine for PSD purposes.
2. Operational Change
Operational changes include both increases in hours of operation and
increases in production rate. Section 60.14(e)(3) provides that an increase
in hours of operation is not, by itself, a modification. However, an increase
in production rate at an existing facility constitutes a modification, unless
it can be accomplished without a capital expenditure on that facility [ see
60.14(e)(2) ).

-------
—11—
It is highly likely that the life extension project at Port Washington
constitutes an operational change under this standard, for two reasons.
First, restoring nameplate capacity at units 1, 2, 3, and 4 presumably
entails, among other things, changes that will allow the units to conibust a
laryer amount of fuel at maximum capacity through operation at higher working
pressures than the units have been able to accomodate in recent years. In
the case or unit 5, the renovations presumably involve an increase over zero
fuel and pressure. These chanyes constitute an increase in production rate
within the meaning of the regulations. Second, as noted above in the
discussion of PSD applicability, this increase in production rate entails
substantial investments to improve the capital stock at each affected
facility. it appears that these investments are large enough to qualify as
“capital expenditures” under the formula specified in 60.2, although WEPCO
should be asked to supply actual calculations should this become necessary
to determine NSPS applicability.
8. Increase in Emission Rate
It seems clear that, absent some creditable offsetting changes, the
increases in maximum generating capacity proposed for each of the Port
Washington units would represent an increase in the hour ly potential emission
rate for each pollutant to which a standard applies over the emission rate
prior to the renovation. As noted above, burning cleaner fuels would not be
creditable. Similarly, voluntarily restricting the production rate following
the renovations also would not be creditable tor NSPS purposes, because WEPCO
could, at a later date, increase production without triggering NSPS [ see
40 CFR 60.14(e)(2)J. Accordingly, to avoid triggering NSPS, WEPCO would need
to install additional air pollution control equipment, or upgrade existiny
equipment, to offset the potential emissions increases, such that no increase
would occur at maximum capacity. The information submitted indicates that
WEPCO may pl. n some enhancement of the current control equipment, but it is
unclear whether this would be adequate to prevent an increase in emission
rates. As with 1 SD applicabilit , such steps can lawfully avoid LISPS require-
ments. Accordingly, you should advise the company that it Should address
these contingencies if it desires EPA to rule on whether WEPCO can avoid NSPS
requirements in this fashion.
C. Reconstruction
Based upon data provided by WEPCO, it seems that the Port Washington
renovations would not qualify as a “reconstruction” for NSPS purposes under
40 CFR 60.15, because the capital cost for the upgrades to each of the five
units, while substantial, apparently is less than 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost of constructing a comparable, entirely new steam generating unit
[ see 60.15(b)(1)]. However, the modification and reconstruction provisions
of NSPS are independent. The former provisions are intended to apply in
circumstances where physical or operational changes which increase emissions
make NSPS coverage appropriate at levels well below 50 percent of the capital
cost of a replacement unit. Conversely, the reconstruction provisions are
aimed at changes to an existing unit irrespective of associated emissions

-------
-12-
increases, but tngger NSPS requirements only if the higher 50 percent level
is reached. Thus, the suggestion made by WEPCO in its July 29, l9 3 letter
(at pages 14-15) that EPA must undertake rulemaking to amend the reconstruction
regulations before NSPS could be applied to the Port Washington project is
not well taken.
IV. Conclusion
In adoptiny the PSD and NSPS programs, Congress sought to focus air
pollution control efforts at an efficient and logical point: the making of
long-term decisions regarding the creation or renewal of major stationary
sources. The Port Washington life extension project, as it has been
presented to EPA. would Involve a substantial financial investment at
pollution—emitting facilities that may significantly increase potential
emissions ot air pollutants over a period well beyond the current life
expectancy of those facilities. If the additional factual information called
for in this memorandum shows that emissions increases would indeed result
from this project, the project would be subject to P50 and NSPS requirements.
Such a result would be in harmony with the broad policy objectives that
Congress intended to achieve through these programs.
Cc: Gerald Emison, OAQPS
Alan Eckert, OGC

-------
PN 165-88-08-29-034
Sr.,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Pa’k. North Carolina 27711
August 29, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transfe of.’rechnology in Determining Lowest
Achievable E i ion’Rate (LAER)
,.r
FROM: Joh rCalcagni, Director
Air Quality Management Division (MD—15)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division, Region V
This is in response to your memorandum of August 9, 1988, requesting
guidance on the transfer of control technology between source categories for
the purpose of determining LAER for a source. This issue was raised by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources in proposing that the control
achieved by incineration of oven and spray booth emissions from a truck parts
surface coating line (which is considered to be miscellaneous metals) should
also be achievable by an automobile surface coating line. You stated that
the policy set forth in the January 16, 1979 Federal Register (page 3280)
would appear to support this position; however, the sentence at the end of
the citation, “Comments on this interpretation and whether it is appropriate
to revise the regulatory definition are solicited,” suggests that the
Environmental Protection Agency might have changed its policy since that
time.
This is to reaffirm the policy stated in the January 16, 1979 Federal
Register . G.ar quick investigation of the regulatory history since the
publication of that policy indicates that no comments were ever received on
that issue. Consequently, the policy has never been revisited. Furthermore,
we interpret the last sentence you cited to mean that we would consider
whether to redefine LAER to clearly reflect policy, not that we would change
the policy on transfer of control technology.
There are two types of potentially transferable control technologies:
1) gas stream controls, and 2) process controls and modifications. For the
first type of transfer, we consider the class or category of sources to
include any sources that produce similar gas streams that could be controlled
by the same or similar technology. The process that generates a volatile
organic compound (VOC) laden gas stream, for example, is immaterial. what
natters is whether the gas stream characteristics, such as composition and

-------
—2—
VOC concentration, are sufficiently si nilar to a stream from which incineration
technology, for example, may be transferred. The same would be true for the
control of particulate matter or sulfur dioxide in a gas stream using control
devices such as baghouses or scrubbers.
For the second type of transfer, process similarity governs the decision.
For example, coating compositions and application technology probably do not
vary substantially across the entire class of motor vehicle coating sources.
A source within that category would, therefore, have to clearly demonstrate
the unique process characteristics that preclude it from using otherwise
transferable LAER technology used by a similar but not necessarily identical
source. We would b; more cautious, however, before grouping more disparate
operations, such as coating semiconductor circuit boards, in the same class as
coating motor vehicles.
Based on your memorandum, Michigan’s application of the technology
transfer policy is based on treatment of the first type (i.e., control of the
gas stream). Consequently, we agree with their position and your support of
it. Incineration of spray booth emissions is a transferable technology in a
LAER determination. Whether it is actually selected as LAER depends, of
course, on the actual gas stream characteristics. Requiring the same level
of control, based on process—related factors such as coating formulation and
coating transfer efficiency, would be a more subjective call but is not the
focus of your question.
In a follow—up telephone conversation with Gary McCutchen on August 24,
1988, your staff requested our policy on LAER determinations for individual
emissions units versus the entire facility. Our policy is that LAER is
primarily an emissions unit determination. Each emissions unit must achieve
the lowest possible emissions rate. Once LAER has been decided for each
emissions unit, the reviewer should then assess LAER for the entire building,
structure, facility, or source. If some more effective LAER exists by
controlling the entire facility (e.g., the entire building exhaust instead
of units within the building), then the “facility—wide” LAER should be
considered. I wever, there are three hurdles to determining “facility—wide”
LAER. The first is that an overall limit on multiple units is difficult if
not impossible to enforce. The second is that a “facility—wide” LAER is
often a combination of emissions unit and facility control, so sources seldom
etplore this option. The third is that most “facility—wide” LAER approaches
proposed by sources are actually bubbles. They do not really represent the
sum of the LAER’s for the respective units, as explained at the beginning of
this paragraph. As you know; LAER cannot be bubbled.
Finally, your staff also asked whether LAER can be considered individually
for each aspect of control of a source. Specifically, they wanted to know if
LAER for surface coating can be considered first for the composition of the
coating, then for the transfer efficiency, and finally for the exhaust gas
stream. The answer is although reviewers must be aware that one decision
affects the others. For example, a requirement for low VOC paint may result

-------
—3—
in gas stream VOC concentrations so low that incineration of the gas stream
is not considered feasible in terms of LAER. However, it is acceptable to
consider composition from one source, application technology (transfer effi-
ciency) from another source, and incineration from a third source when
performing a LAER determination, as long as each of those sources meets the
control techiiology transfer criteria discussed above.
11 you have further questions regarding transfer of technology in LAER
determinations, please contact Gary McCutchen at FTS 629—5592.

-------
PN 165-88-07-28-033
s-f,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
‘; i Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUL 2 8 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Supplemental Guidance on Implementing the North County
Prevention of Significant Oeterioratjo (PSD) Remand
FROM: John Calcagni, Director /J—7i 1 , .
frr Air Quality Management Division (MD—15)
TO: I Addressees
On September 22, 1987, Gerald Ernison issued guidance on implementation *
of the Administrator’s remand decision in the North County PSD permit appeal,
P50 Appeal No. 85—2. That document sets forth, in general terms, the essence
of the remand-—that all pollutants, including those not directly regulated by
the Clean Air Act are to be considered in making the best available control
technology (BAd) determination for a PSD applicant. Now that the guidance
is out, various issues beyond the scope of the September 22, 1987 document
have arisen. I am addressing two of them. The first deals with the flexibility
that the permitting authority has with respect to pollutants considered and
controls selected, while the second involves the level of detail needed in
the PSO public notice.
Consideration of Air Tox cs in the BACT Determination
The BACT requirement is implemented through case—by—case decisioninaking.
While this necessarily involves significant use of judgment by the permitting
authority, certain policy presumptions apply: that it consider the full range
of pollution control options available and choose the most effective means of
limiting emissions, subject only to a showing of compelling reasons of economic
or energy impracticality. Those are the important lessons underscored by the
North County and H—Power remands. The presumption of employing a top-do 4n
BACT analysis was further emphasized in Craig Potter’s memorandum of December
1, 1987, entitled “Improving New Source Review (NSR) Implementation,” to the
Regional Administrators. Other policy presumptions were articulated in the
September 22, 1987 guidance requiring that the BACT determination for regulated
pollutants be sensitized to the control of unregulated air pollutants (including
air toxics).
The September 22, 1987 policy does not identify which toxic substances,
require consideration in the BACT analysis, and at what levels. Among the
reasons for this is that the information with respect tO the type and magnitude
of emissions of noncriteria pollutants for many source categories is limited.
* pr 1 c ’?-Z L -OZô
pN -g-7_, ,- OZ Z.

-------
-2-
For example, a combustion source emits hundreds of substances, but knc dedge
of the magnitude of some of these emissions or the hazard they produce is
sparse. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pursuing a variety
of projects that will help permitting authorities to determine pollutants of
concern, EPA believes it is appropriate for agencies to proceed on a
case—by—case basis using the best information available. Thus, the determina-
tion of whether the pollutants would be emitted in amounts sufficient to be
of concern is one that the permitting authority has considerable discretion in
making. Reasonable efforts should be made to address these issues. The EPA
expects these efforts to include consultation with the Regional Office and with
the Control Technology Center (dc), National Air Toxics Information Clearing-
house, and Air Risk Information Support Center In the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and review of the literature, such as
EPA-prepared compilations of emission factors. Source—specific information
supplied by the permit applicant is often the best source of information, and
it is important that the company be made a are of its responsibility to provide
for a reasonable accounting of air toxics emissions.
Similarly, once the pollutants of concern are identified, the permitting
authority has flexibility in determining the methods by which it factors air
toxics considerations into the BACT determination, subject to the obligation
to make reasonable efforts to consider air toxics. Consultation by the
review authority with EPA’s implementation centers, particularly the CTC, is
again advised. One exception to this approach is where a municipal waste
combustor is involved. Here, the OAQPS has provided rather detailed guidance
regarding pollutants of concern and their control. (See memorandum of June
22, 1987, from Gerald Emison to EPA Regional Air Division Directors.) Similar
guidance on other source categories will be developed as appropriate.
It is important to note that several acceptable methods, including risk
assessment, exist to incorporate air toxics concerns into the BACT decision.
Whatever the methods selected, these serve only to affect the selection of
the control strategy. The overall approvability of a project once it applies
BACT depends on other criteria, as well, and is outside the scope of the
North County remand and this guidance.
Level of Detail in Public Notice
The September 22, 1987 guidance strongly emphasizes public participation.
The purpose of the PSD public notice is to provide sufficient information as
to the type of source involved, and its projected emissions and proposed
controls, such that potentially interested citizens will be apprised of the
main issues. Individuals wishing to investigate those issues in depth can
turn to the technical support document. Our intent regarding air toxics is
to provide the public with adequate notice of potential issues. The identi-
fication of specific toxic substances and the degree of detail in the notice
should be consistent with the concern posed by air toxics.
For example, if there are no air toxics projected to be emitted in
amounts sufficient to be of concern to the permitting authority, the notice

-------
-3-
can be handled very simply. One way, but by no means the only way, of doing
this would be to note that “the [ permitting authority] also considered the
impact of available control alternatives on emissions of other pollutants,
including those not regulated by the Clean Air Act, in making the BACT
determination, but found that no such pollutants would be emitted in amounts
sufficient to cause concern.”
When any toxic pollutants of concern have been identified, it is
appropriate that the public be informed of them more directly. A variety of
approaches is acceptable. Public notice requirements would be met if all these
pollutants are mentioned individually, by name, or addressed by referring to
them by groups (e.g., “toxic metals”). It might be reasonable to note the main
representative pollutants (e.g., uthe State has examined other pollutants of
potential concern, including compounds A, B and C”). In short, the permitting
authority can provide adequate notice in several ways, including the names of
the pollutants at issue and an indication that the compounds are toxic. The
notice can be quite brief on this subject (1-2 sentences), deferring any
detailed analyses and discussion to the technical support document.
EPA Oversight
The EPA Regional Offices are n supporting State and local implementation
of PSD review in virtually all cases and are charged with taking enforcement
action, as necessary, to ensure proper implementation of the September 22,
1987 policy. Action is contemplated only where basic procedural steps are
missed, such as appropriate public notice, or inclusion of discussion of
relevant control alternatives in the technical support document, or where the
substantive technical analysis is clearly inconsistent with general practice.
Priority should be given to those cases in which there is a practical impact
to any followup—-for example, more effective and affordable controls were not
consi dered.
The OAQPS is taking steps to facilitate continuing effective implementation
of this policy. One step toward this goal is the recent addition of this policy
in reviews of PSD permits under the National Air Audlt System.
Thank you for your progress in carrying out this significant regulatory
requirement. If you need further assistance, please contact Michael Trutna at
FTS 629-5345 or Kirt Cox at FTS 629-5399.
Addressees:
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, Region IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, and X
cc: Air Branch Chiefs
New Source Review Contacts
Air Toxics Coordinators
OAQPS Divison Directors
G. Emison
J. O’Conno,r
E. Lillis
G. McCutchen
M. Trutna
K. Cox

-------
PN 165—88-07-05-032
t’ S F 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4
JUL 5 1988
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Air Quality Analysis for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
From: Gerald A. Emison, Directp ”
Office of Air Quality PTanning and Standards (MD- ’lO)
To: Thomas J. Maslany, Director
Air Management Division (3AMOO)
Your memorandum of May 9, 1988, pointed out that ‘b o different procedures
are currently being used by the Regional Offices in certain PSD permit analyses.
The inconsistency Involves the question of how to interpret dispersion modeling
results to determine whether a source will cause or contribute to a new or
existing violation of a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD
increment. This memorandum serves to resolve the Inconsistency by reaffirming
previous Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards guidance provided in a
December 1980 policy memorandum (attached). Pt ’J t’ —&’—i. -ic.oi7
As you know 1 the regulations for PSD stipulate that approval to construct
cannot be granted to a proposed new major source or major modification If it
would cause or contribute to a NAAQS or Increment violation. Historically, the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) position has been that a PSD source
will not be considered to cause or contribute to a predicted NAAQS or increment
violation If the source’s estimated air quality Impact is insignificant (i.e.,
at or below defined de minimis levels). In recent years, b,o approaches have
been used to determine if a source would usignlflcantlyu (40 CFR 51.165(b)
defines significant) cause or contribute to a violation. The first is where a
proposedsource would automatically be considered to cause or contribute to any
modeled violation that would occur within Its Impact area. In this approach,
the source’s Impact Is modeled and a closed circle Is drawn around the source,
with a radius equal to the farthest distance from the source at which a
significant impact is projected. If, upon consideration of both proposed and
existing emissions contributions, modeling predicts a violation of either a
NAAQS or an increment anywhere within this Impact area, the source (as proposed)
would not be granted a permit. The permit would be denied, even if the source’s
impact was not significant at the predicted site of the violation during the
violation period. You have indicated that this Is the approach you currently
use.

-------
—2-
The second approach similarly projects air quality concentrations
throughout the proposed source’s impact area, but does not automatically
assume that the proposed source would cause or contribute to a predicted NAAQS
or increment violation. Instead, the analysis is carried one step further in
the event that a modeled violation is predicted. The additional step deter-
mines whether the emissions from the proposed source will have a significant
ambient impact at the point of the modeled NAAQS or increment violation when
the violation is predicted to occur. If it can be demonstrated that the
proposed source’s Impact Is not “significant” In a spatial and temporal sense,
then the source may receive a PSD permit. This approach Is currently being
used by Region V and several other Regional Offices, and Is the approach that
you recorir end as the standard approach for completing the PSD air quality
analysis.
In discussing this matter with members of my staff from the Source
Receptor Analysis Branch (SRAB) and the Noncriteria Pollutant Programs Branch
(NPPB), It appears that different guidance has been provided, resulting in the
two separate approaches just sun narized. We have examined the history and
precedents which have been set concerning this issue. I also understand that
this issue was discussed extensively at the May 17—20, 1988 Regional Office!
State Modelers Workshop, and that a consensus favored the approach being used
by Region V and several other Regions. Based on this Input, as well as your
own recon nendation, I believe the most appropriate course of action to follow
Is the second approach which considers the significant impact of the source in
a way that is spatially and temporally consistent with the predicted violations.
By following the second approach, three possible outcomes could occur:
(a) First, dispersion modeling may show that no violation of a NAQSor
PSD increment will occur in the impact area of the proposed source. In this
case, a permit may be issued and no further action is required.
(b) Second, a modeled violation of a NAAQS or PSD increment may be
predicted within the impact area, but, upon further analysis, it Is determined
that the proposed source will not have a significant impact (i.e., will not be
above de minimis levels) at the point and time of the modeled violation.
When this occurs, the proposed source may be issued a permit (even when a new
violation would result from its insignificant impact), but the State must
also take the appropriate steps to substantiate the NAAQS or increment viola-
tion and begin to correct it through the State implementation plan (SIP).
The EPA Regional Offices’ role in this process should be to establish with
the State agency a timetable for further analysis and/or corrective action
leading to a SIP revision, where necessary. Additionally, the Regional
Office should seriously consider a notice of SIP deficiency, especially if
the State does not provide a schedule in a timely manner.
Cc) Finally, the analysis may predict that a NAAQS or increment
violation will occur in the impact area and that the proposed source will
have a significant impact on the violation. Accordingly, the proposed source
is considered to cause, or contribute to, the violation and cannot be issued
a permit without further control or offsets. For a new or existing NAAQS

-------
—3-
violation, offsets sufficient to compensate for the source’s significant
impact must be obtained pursuant to an approved State offset program consis-
tent with SIP requirements under 40 CFR 51.165(b). Where the source is
contributing to an existing violation, the required offsets may not correct
the violation. Such existing violations must be addressed in the same manner
as described in (b) above. However, for any increment violation (new or
existing) for which the proposed source has a significant impact, the permit
should not be approved unless the Increment violation is corrected prior
.to operation of the proposed source (see 43 FR p.26401, June 19, 1978; and
45 FR p.52678, August 7, 1980).
Your memorandum also states that other air quality analysis issues exist
within the NSR program which need consistent national guidance. You recom-
mend a more coordinated effort between SRAB and NPPB to review outstanding NSR
issues. We agree; however, rather than establishing a formal work group as you
propose, we are optimistic that the formal participation of representatives
of the NSR program In the Modeling Clearinghouse will help resolve coordination
problems. Earlier in the year, the Modeling Clearinghouse was officially
expanded to Include representation from the NPPB to coordinate PSD/NSR issues
which have a modeling component.
I trust that this Is responsive to the concerns which you have raised.
By copy of this memorandum, we are also responding to a Region V request
for clarification on the same issue (memorandum from Steve Rothblatt to
Joe Tikvart/Ed Lulls, dated February 18, 1988).
Should you have any further questions concerning this response, please
feel free to contact Gary McCutchen, Chief, New Source Review Section, at
FTS 629-5592.
Attachment
cc: Air Division Directors, Regions 1-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
D. Clay
J. Calcagni
J. Tikvart
E. Lilils
G. McCutchen
D. deRoeck

-------
PN 165-88-06-07-031
sr 4
g UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
C ; .’
“ io’-
JUN 7 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: flcant
on
FROM: agfl -
ality Hanage rI ’Division (MD-15)
TO: ivid Xee, Director
Lir and Radiation Division (5AR-26)
I have reviewed your memorandum of 4ay 2, 1988 conce ’ning the issue
of whether -use of tire-derived fuel (TDF) at existing steam generating
facilities should be classified as an alternative fuel gei’cratad from
municipal solid waste. My conclusion supports your preliminary determina-
tion that TDF does not, by itself, constitute municipal solid waste in
accordance with the definition contained in paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 60.51.
I also do not consider TDF to be “generated from” municipal solid waste
within the context of the PSD exemption for major modifications. Conse-
quently, the use of TDF as an alternative fuel would not qualify for a PSD
exemption under subparagraph (b)(2)(iii)(d) of 40 CFR 52.21.
My staff has reviewed the brief yet pertinent language contained in
two Federal Register preambles which leads us to conclude that the intent
in establishing the subject exemption was to address fuel consisting of
either the total collected mixture of municipal type waste, i.e., municipal
solid waste, or the bulk of such mixture excluding the noncombustible waste
fraction, i.e., refuse derived fuel. The PSO exemption is explained briefly
in the preamble to the 1980 PSD amendments as applying to “fuel derived in
whole or in part from municipal solid waste” [ 45 FR 52698, August 7, 1980].
The concept of “derived in whole” appears to refer to a fuel prepared from
the complete content of municipal solid waste. However, the meaning of
“derived . . . in part” is not as apparent.
We have also relied on the preamble discussion of the same exemption
contained in the 1979 Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling. In that
preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refers to the use of
“municipal solid waste (including refuse derived fuel . . . )“ [ 44 FR 3278,
January 6, 1979]. Taken together, these brief explanations strongly suggest
! eflti on of

-------
—2-
that EPA’s concern is for the alternative use of municipal solid waste which
has already been collected, and not any particular individual component which
might be utilized as a fuel by itself. Since nearly everything can be found
in municipal waste from used oil to plastics to pesticides, the argument that
any combustible material found in municipal waste should qualify for this
exemption when recovered and burned alone is somewhat unrealistic.
Therefore, the use of a particular material as an alternate fuel, even
If It Is found In municipal solid waste, does not qualify for the PSD
exemption and should be reviewed to determine whether an Increase in actual
emissions would result. In the event that such alternative fuel would
result In a significant net emissions Increase, then Its use should be
reviewed as a major modification.
Should you have any further questions or coni ents concerning this
determination, please contact Dan deRoeck at FTS 629-5593.
cc: E. Lillis
New Source Review Contacts
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X

-------
PN 165-88-04-25-030
O S .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Parke North Carolina 27711
c, ÷‘
t
PR 25 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: LAER Emission Limits
Topcoat Operations
FROM: Jack R. Farmer,
Emission Standards Divl94on (MD.-13)
TO: See Below
At the March Air Directors’ meeting in Seattle, Washington, some
questions were raised concerning the Agency’s current position regarding
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) emission limits for automobile and
light-duty truck topcoat operations. This memorandum describes our position
on this issue.
The LAER emission limit for automobile and light-duty truck topcoat
operations should be at least as stringent as 12.26 pounds of volatile
organic compound (VOC) per gallon of solids deposited with compliance
on a daily basis using actual measured transfer efficiency values. This
limit should apply regardless of the material of Construction (substrate)
of the vehicles being coated (e.g. metal, plastic or combination.)
The basis for citing this emission limit as LAER is the permit (see
attachment) for Subaru/Isuzu in Lafayette, Indiana. The permit for
Toyota in Georgetown, Kentucky, may also be used to support this limit.
When the industry has argued for less stringent emission limits because
of the type of coating or the type of substrate planned, we have maintained
that “painting cars is painting cars,” and these factors do not justify less
stringent emission limits. We have taken this position because technology
and manufacturing processes constantly change and evolve; the manufacturer
is responsible for ensuring that any new process meets environmental as
well as product requirements.
The procedure which we feel is most appropriate for determining
compliance with this LAER limit is the protocol which we have been devel-
oping in conjunction with the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
(Mvt tA). We met with the MVMA on March 22, 1988, to discuss the draft
it-Duty Truck

-------
2
protocol. We are making some changes in the protocol based upons the
discussion at this meeting. We expect to have the final protocol ready
soon. If you have an immediate need to provide a compliance procedure for
a topcoat LAER determination, please contact Dave Salman at FTS-629-5417.
Attachment
Addressees:
Irwin Dickstein, Reg VIII
Louis Gitto, Reg I
William Hathaway, Reg VI
David Howekamp, Reg IX
David Kee, Reg V
Thomas Maslany, Reg III
Gary O’Neal, Reg X
Conrad Simon, Reg II
Winston Smith, Reg IV
William Spratlin, Reg VII
cc: Mike Alushin, LE—134A
John Calcagni, MD—iS
Jerry Emison, MD-lU
Joan LaRock, A-lUl
John Seitz, EN-341
bcc:
Wayne Aronson, Reg IV
Tom Helms, MD-15
Lars Johnson/Brent Marable, Reg V
Paul Kahn, Reg II
Vishnu Katari, EN-341
Floyd Ledbetter, Peg IV
Nancy Mayer, MD-15
Gary McCutchen, MD-15
Mindy Moore/Lee Hanley, Reg VIII
Bob O’Meara/Tom Elter, Reg I
Bill Repsher, LE-134A
Steve Rosenthal, Region V
Cynthia Stahl, Req III
David Sullivan/Willie Kelly, Reg VI
Jean Thompson, Reg III
Mary Tietjen, Reg VII
Tim Williamson, Reg I
Bill Wruble/Dennis Beauregard, Peg IX

-------
S:IO LB/B ’CQ O HD S’ 3 L .JO
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Control No. OOQ
OiHCE OF AIR MANAGEMENT Ptge I of
jflJ INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO\MENTAL MANAGEMENT
103 South Meridian Stree t
Indlartap4 Ik. Indiana 462. i
5beru- suxu .utai tivs In t rat . Ir i&ta Plartt
1nt.xs.ctici of Stat. 38
Int.ritat 65
nmar La.fay.tt., Indixia o
j P •rcby . tPtor z.d 10 ConEruCt - .
a niw aut i1. &d i 4’t duty U’J k usu 1y pL t at t cvs Location s ri at
of LaLay.tt., Indla4, 0cr a2.ati.r q of a ut.utç q .t , body tiEç, psânt
_ - f in e_ i uais t1y s1 ç. ThtUs tart of e. r pt ii1ut na wiLL occ. pc rtLy fr
.ta.t 1W g operations, iurfa t .nq cç*ratia s cd I’b .mtiai of netu _i gn.
Thu ps. t La ait d tz sr pro’ Uta s of 1. 32 LAC 2-1.1.. w .th firdthgs
C tttGfl* 1.i.a on the P? $ .
1denti cation No. F (79 ) Dat, Iuued f 1 4
Ezp aiIon Da&e N/A by
I 31060 I

-------
c • ;:to L8’8t’ 2Q
•p9 ) •9
aHi ODIfIlthfl
Body Pflm
CrIU*hI Pvlm.
PVC Unøef lt
Ston.Quer
Ptlmsr SurtI r
Top I
o.ie k VOCJ1 5p 4 .$oll4$
NA (Not ip**bt
NA
NA
1.40 kQ VOCII lpp solids
1.47 kg VOCJ1 ap l io 5ds’
$ubaru lsuzu Automotive Inc 1 Indiana Plant
— OPERATION CONDITIONS _
jjthI Orç f1IO ComødundfttVOC
YOC La,dsstor Un
1. fl s* VOC irilsilofli . sil not . c..d IM rit I Si.cwfl U’t ii tsbte b,IoW. Th55S mIte ire
pur$UW’l IM fOltO*4t Rules:
326 lAG 24-3(Z P 60 Boat AvItl le Con ol Te r%otogy r.quir.m4n ( ACT):
326 lAG 12.1.36 Now $oufCI Pv 0mW’C* Standa $ to? AutomobUl afld U M Duty
Trudi CootInC O Ir*tIOf%3 (40 CFR 60.310-398)CNSPS),
325 IAC $ Vøls ie OrinlC Com ourtd Enilsuiofl Lirnjt$4IAC I)
urfiei Coiling VDC mlsslor U 1I
_____ A T
O 062 k VOCI1 apçt.sc d$
o a49 VOCII a ppt cofids
0.03 kQ VCCI1 c : solids
a VOCJI appt soU S
0.95 kg VOC1I 1 I SOlidS
1.47 kQ VOCI1 ap 4
O.14kgVOC/ 1 & 2
(1AC 8-2 -2)
0.38 k 9 VOCJ 1CIQ 1
(IAC 6.2.10)
C42kcVOc0E c 1
(IAC 8 .-2.t 0)
0.87 k VOC 1 sp;I $OIkil 3
(IAC 8.2-10)
1 83 k VOCA s l sOl CS
(LAC 8-2-2)
i . i vocn eppt so i s ’

-------
d c .E’EL’E3 E 3
GudIM Unl dlng arid VMda FuefinG
•. That 323 IAC 6.46 h QUCOn$ StOrage tailki slitU be IQuiPcId with $4JbflhIrged fJ
pipee end a (maCe I) vapor ballAd J ItIfl r gisoiri tfudt unicEing. Tart truds lull not be
utuo d unle s s s ey its propei 5y eqUloped and oonnsct. tree vapor bilenc, system and Uuø
sys m Is In 0per cit
10. That the vePide QIsOIlIC ttjslin operation be e jVc’sd wfth $ Stage II) vapor bal&nc, corv
yslem and that 6 e syat.m be In gpiritlori whsnqvy vil a ate being fulled.
Oven £fW umeri
11. ThiS the leflo rng oven sIta tumiei shall be In servce at sit litres that the ulodaNd oven
In operation:
I. ED 8ody Pr n Oven Altarbumer
b. ID Chassis Prlm Oven Attgr jrner
C. intirmi I&te Oven Afier nir
d. Topcoat Oven No.1 Af i%m.r
.. Topcoat Oven No.2 Afterburner
1. T Soiue Oven Afterburner
o. PIiX Coating Oven Afterturner
12. That the sbcve afterburners shell miJrtteln a minlm .nii combu 1cn temperature end reLdert
IMI of 14C0 0 F and 0.3 Mconda rsspeCtivity end achieve 90’A desvuctlon efficiency. Records of
SitIrbWTtIC operation and comb don temperature snail te maintalnd ano made avsilabls upon
riqM.
VOC Compusrue, Oe tniIr ti ria
13. That compliance with the NSPS enilalon UrnitaDons a ve shefl be determined pursuir 4C
CF 60.3 3 based On (ha morulPiy vol.ima weighted avarice mass of VOC emitted per vglume of
applied using U1.6O.393(c)(IXI) tibi transler etltdqndes
14. That compliance *ith Sn IACT end 323 L C I emission limitation • Pre$Sid 83 kg VOC/lit,r
.Ø. Ø.d solids sPud be datermred on a daily basis based en actual ddy coaling usage. Actual
ftr fer efficiency and actual afterburner capbjre an destruction efficiency data Snail be
determined It the pvtorvnanc.e rlng specified In Conodoru 21 Coadng sOlvent content shall be
determined by ASTM Method O 5541 (‘ I hour bake).
15. That compt n wIth iS BACT end 325 AC 6 em sion Ilm itSIlor , expressed as kgJl costing
schds slid be dstent*ued on a daily bass based en sc:uel daily coaling usage, using costing SCt ie
cariterK arid volume % so . Coating solvent Conten shall be determined by ASTM Method
O236a-l1( I 1 hour b*e). Coating volume ‘Y. Solids shall be based on manufacturers fcrrn.iaticn

-------
16. That compliance with emission limitations expressed as kg/I coating (minus water) shall be
determined by ASTM Method D2369 -81(w/l hour bake).
17. That for operations where compliance is based on daity averaging of more than one coating, the
methodology used for deterTTlifliflg the average VOC emission rate shall be a weighted average by
volume of all coatings based on actual daily coating usage and shall be submitted to and approved by
the Commissioner pnor to start of commercial operation of the plant.
18. That compliance with emission limits expressed as lbs/day shall be based on actual daily
coating usage data and on coating solvent content determined by ASTM Method D2369 -81 (w/ 1 hour
bake). For operations with oven afterburners actual control efficiencies shall be used to calculate
final emission rates if the afterburner is relied upon to establish compliance.
19. That VOC content of coatings may be determined based on a combination of analytical and
formulation data in acoordance with 325 IAC 8.1.1-2.
VOC Testing RequIrements
20. That pursuant to 40 CFR 60.393 monthly. NSPS performance tests for prime coat, guidecoat and
topcoat operations shall be performed to document compliance with the NSPS limits. Pursuant to 40
CFR 60.8a, the initial performance test shall be performed within 60 days of achieving maximum
production rate but rio later than 180 days after initial startup.
21. That within 60 days of achieving maximum production rate but no latter than 180 ’days after
start of commercial production the following shall be established using test procedures and
methodology submitted to and approved by the Commisioner prior to testing:
a. Actual overall coating solids transfer efficiency of the system used to
apply each coating type for coating operations with emission limits expressed
as kg/i appi solids.
b. Afterburner capture effidency and destruction efficiency for all ovens equipped
with afterburners. Oestnjaion efficiency testing shall be performed pursuant to
325 IAC 3-2.
VOC R.cordk..plng and R.portlrig R.qulr.ments -
22. That daily records shall be maintained of all coatings and solvents used. These records shall
be made available upon request and maintained for the most recent two-year period.
23. That records shall be maintained of purge sofverit used, reclaimed arid disposed of These
records shall be made available upon request and maintained for the most recent two-year period

-------
PN 165-87-10—05-029
_ t St 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
OCT 6 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Emissions from Landfills
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director -
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-b)
TO: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
This is in response to your September 1, 1987, memorandum requesting
clarification regarding how landfill emissions should be considered for the
purpose of determining nonattainment new source review (NSR) applicability
under 40 CFR 51.18.
As you are aware, a landfill is subject to NSR If its potential to
emit, excluding fugitive emissions, exceeds the 100 tons per year applicable
major source cutoff for the pollutant for which the area is nonattainmer,t.
Fugitive emissions are defined in 40 CFR (j)(1)(ix) as u, • • those emissions
which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other
functionally equivalent opening.’ 1 Landfill emissions that could reasonably
be collected and vented are therefore not considered fugitive emissions
and nust be included in calculating a source’s potential to emit.
For various reasons (e.g., odor and public health concerns, local
regulatory requirements, economic incentives), many landfills are
constructed with gas collection systems. Collected landfill gas may be
flared, vented to the atmosphere, or processed into useful ener ’ end
products such as high—Btu gas, steam, or electricity. In these cases, for
either an existing or proposed landfill, it is clear that the collected
landfill gas does not qualify as fugitive emissions and nest be included
In the source’s potential to emit when calculating NSR applicability.
The preamble to the 1980 NSR regulations characterizes nonfugitive
emissions as . . . those emissions which would ordinarily be collected and
discharged through stacks or other functionally equivalent openings.”
Although there are some exceptions, it is our understanding that landfills
are not ordinarily constructed with gas collection systems. Therefore,
emissions from existing or proposed landfills without gas collection
systems are to be considered fugitive emissions and are not included in the
NSR applicability determination. This does not mean that the appliciint’s
decision on whether to collect emissions is the deciding factor; in fact,
the reviewing authority makes the decision on which emissions would
ordinarily be collected and which therefore are not considered fugitive
emissions.

-------
2
It should be noted that NSR applicability is pollutant specific.
Therefore, where the landfill gas is flared or otherwise combusted or
processed before release to the atmosphere, it is the pollutant releac d
which counts toward NSR applicability. As an example, la idfill gas is
composed mostly of volatile organic compounds, but when this gas is burned
In a flare, It Is the type and quantity of pollutants in the exhaust gas
(e.g., nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide) that are used in the NSR
applicability determination.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Gary McCutchefl, Chief, New Source Review Section, at FTS 629—5592.
cc: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I—X

-------
PN 165-87-08-05-028
(o ,.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
______ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
i auiØ1 ’
:i jt 10)
3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Revised Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD Matter
FROM: ,v Dar6 V’D. Tyler, Director
V— Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Regions IV
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, and X
As you know, the revisions to the national ambient air quality
standards (NMQS) for particulate matter, published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1987, and effective on July 31, 1987, will cause significant
changes to the way that EPA and affected State and local agencies implement
the national PSD program with respect to particulate matter. While it is
clear that EPA n .ist begin to impose the new PM 10 provisions under its
Part 52 PSD regulations beginning on July 31, 1987, we do not have a good
understanding as to what kind of particulate matter analyses will be
reqtrired by the State and local agencies who have PSD responsibility
[ either via delegation or State implementation plan (SIP) approval] once
the PM 10 NAAQS become effective. The purpose of this memo 15: (1) to
highlight the potential differences as to when the new PM 10 indicator must be
subject to PSD review under EPA’s Part 52 PSD regulations versus the PSD
rules in approved SIP’s, and (2) to encourage you to communicate with
your affected State and local agencies (if you have not already done so)
to ensure that all parties understand their PSD role concerning the new
PM 10 requirements.
There are three basic implementation schemes under which the national
PSD program is currently being carried out. Below, for each implementation
scheme, I have summarized the way that the PSD program for particulate
matter should be carried out from the date the new PM 10 indicator became
effective (July 31, 1987). 1 have also indicated the communicative

-------
2
actions that you will need to take to ensure that we understand the role
of the affected State or local agencies in carrying out the PM 10 revisions
under PSD in the upcoming months.
Case 1. EPA implementation of PSD
In the areas where EPA has sole responsibility for PSD review under
the requirements at 40 CFR 52.21, the new P11 10 indicator must be reviewed
as a P50 pollutant as of July 31, 1987, the date the revised NAAQS for
particulate matter became effective under 40 CFR 50.6. On and after July 31,
1987, EPA Regional Offices must regard PM 10 as a pollutant subject to
regulation under the Clean Air Act (Act). As such, PSD review nnist apply in
general to any PM 10 emitted in significant amounts by a PSD source. See,
for example, the requirements for best available control technology (BACT) at
40 CFR 52.21(j).
Another part of the P50 requirements, under 40 CFR 52.21(d), requires
that no concentration of a pollutant from a proposed source or modification
can cause a violation of a primary or secondary NA.AQS. Beginning on
July 31, 1987, EPA is legally obligated to protect the PM 10 —based NAAQS
under its Part 52 P50 regulations; the total suspended particulates (TSP)
NAAQS will no longer exist under 40 CFR Part 50. However, the TSP P50
increments are still in effect and must continue to be protected;
there are, as yet, no PM 10 increments.
Implementation of PSD will follow the newly—amended Part 52 PSD
regulations, which now contain a new PM 1 O significant emission rate and air
quality concentration (the latter for enabling monitoring exemptions), a
special PM 10 monitoring phase—in schedule, and P 1110 grandfathering provi-
sions. All PSD applicants who are not eligible to be grandfathered must be
instructed to include as part of their particulate matter analysis a
review of both TSP and PM1O as appropriate under the new significance
criteria. Accordingly, an applicant may be required to include a BACT
analysis for both P11 10 and TSP, and may have to demonstrate that the
source will not cause or contribute to a violation of the PM1O NAAQS and
the TSP increments.
Case 2. State implementation of PSD under EPA delegation
In States where the PSO program is carried out wholly or in part by
the State or local agency under a delegation of EPA’s P50 responsibility,
the requ rements contained in EPA’s P50 regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 will
apply to P11 10 . All PSD applicants who are not eligible to be grandfathered
must be instructed to meet the applicable PSD provisiqns for TSP and
PM 10 as of July 31, 1987, as in case 1.
Delegate agencies should be encouraged to continue implementing
the PSO program. it is important, therefore, for you to determine whether
the existing delegation agreement for each delegate agency in your Region
is adequate to cover PSD review for the new P h 10 indicator, and whether
the delegate agency intends to immediately carry out the required PM

-------
3
analyses. In the event that the delegation agreement is not adequate,
you should seek to negotiate an updated agreement to cover the new PMi
responsibilities. I urge you to initiate communications with the appropriate
agencies as soon as possible in light of the July 31, 1987, implementation
date for P 1 1 10 .
If the State chooses not to modify the agreement at this time, then
the Region must undertake responsibility for the PSD review for at least
those PSD sources that would have the potential to emit significant
amounts of PMjrj emissions. Any change to a delegation agreement, whether
it be to expand the current delegation authority or to withdraw a portion
of the State’s authority, must be noticed in the Federal Register .
Case 3. State implementation of PSD under approved SIP
In States where an approved PSD SIP currently exists, each State
should revise its rules to fully address the new PMi indicator by May 1,
1988. Until the new PSO procedures are approved by EPA as SIP revisions,
States must continue to implement their existing PSD rules for particulate
matter. The EPA will assume at this point that under their current P 50
SIP’s, States will continue to review only TSP as the regulated indicator
for particulate matter until a SIP revision is submitted to EPA for approval.
Some States, however, may find that the language in their existing
rules is sufficiently open—ended to enable (or require) them to review PM 10
as a regulated form of particulate matter from the date the PMi NAAQS became
effective (July 31, 1987). A survey of some State regulations suggests
that some States may also be authorized to provide such immediate protection
of the PM 10 NAAQS.
The possibility that a State PSD rule could already cover PMi is
based on the fact that some States have used the phrase “each pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act” in several PSD provisions, e.g., the
requirement for BACT. This phrase could be interpreted to mean that when
EPA promulgates requirements for a new pollutant (or in this case, a new
regulated form of a pollutant) in accordance with the Act, such pollutant
could immediately be considered to bea regulated pollutant pursuant to
their PSD rule.
Similarly, the section of a State regulation which defines “NAAQS”
(or equivalent terminology) could be considered sufficiently open—ended
in some cases to enable a State to immediately incorporate EPA’s revised
particulate matter NAAQS based on the new PM 10 indicator.
Based on the considered possibilities, I foresee at least three ways
that States may implement their P50 programs for particulate matter under
the existing language of their PSD rule:
1. No immediate PM 10 review (TSP remains as the only indicator
for particulate matter until SIP revisions are approved);

-------
4
2. A PSO review for PM 10 only as a regulated pollutant (BACT analysis
required for PM 10 , but TSP NAAQS remain in effect); or
3. A PSD review for PM1O as a regulated pollutant, with PM 10 also the
indicator for the NAAQS.
Of course, regardless of which case may apply, TSP must also continue
to be reviewed as a regulated pollutant and as the indicator for the PSD
increments. In no case, however, will EPA have a responsibility to review
PM 10 under a PSD permit issued pursuant to an approved PSD SIP.
There are at least two reasons why it is important to understand how
the States intend to implement their existing PSD SIP with respect to
particulate matter. First, PSD applicants must know what preconstruction
analyses will be required of them. Second, once a State makes a determina-
tion as to what the current rules will require, EPA will expect all PSD
permits issued pursuant to such rule to be consistent with that determina-
tion. For these reasons, I believe that it is necessary for each Regional
Office to notify affected State and local agencies concerning their need
to determine how they intend to implement their PSD requirements for
particulate matter based on the current language under the aproved SIP.
The State or local agency determinations should be submitted to EPA in
writing and will be used by EPA to interpret the applicability of the
current PSD SIP’s to PM 10 .
During the next several months, It will also be appropriate to review
the preliminary determinations being issued by State and local agencies
to ensure that the particulate matter analyses are being performed in
accordance with their written interpretation of the existing PSD rules.
Thus, if you are not already requiring that such preliminary determinations
be routinely submitted to you, I urge you to do so at this time.
In order that I might be informed of your progress in determining the
status of existing delegations and approved PSD SIP’s, please have the
person assigned this task contact our New Source Review Section personnel
within the next several weeks. In the meantime, if you have any questions
concerning PM 10 implementation under PSD or need further guidance regarding
the issues involving PSD delegations or existing SIP language, please call
Dan deRoeck at FTS 629-5593 or Gary McCutchen at FTS 529—5592.

-------
PN 165-87-01-29-027
,IO s’..
- ,‘
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of ir Quality Planning and Standards
\• ,.‘ Research T iargle Park, North Carolina 27711 1’ -
C ,.,,
JAN 2 91987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Inçlementation of the Revised deling Guideline for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration 0)
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Program Oevelopmen 01 sion (MD-is)
TO: Director
Air Division, Regions 14
Section 165(e)(3)(D) of the Clean Al r Act (Act) requires the Administrator
to adopt regulations specifying with reasonable particularity models to be
used to co ly with the Act’s PSD requirenents. To carry out these requirements,
the 1978 •Guideline on Air Quality Models was Incorporated by reference In
40 CR 51.24 (now rent bered 51.166) and 40 CR 52.21. Many States have
adopted this guideline In their P 50 regulations.
On September 9, 1986 (51 FR 32176), EPA proimilgated amendments to
40 tFR 51.24 (now rent ered 51.166) and 52.21 to substitute by reference the
•Guideline on Air Quality Model’. (Revlsed), EPA 450/2-78—027R, In these
regulations. This change became effective October 9, 1986. This means that
all modeling done pursuant to the P50 requirements mist either con ly with
the 1986 versIon of the modeling guideline or be specifically approved by EPA;
modeling done pursuant to the 1978 guidance nay no longer be accepted.
The PSD permits are reviewed by EPA, State, or local agency personnel
depending on whether and to whom EPA has transferred the P50 program. This
program transfer could take the form of: (1) a delegation where the State or
local authority agrees to act in the Administrator’s place to apply the
requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 regulations to sources, or (2) a State lmplementa-
tion plan (SIP) where States have adopted their own P50 regulations which
co 1y with4O CFR 51.166 (formerly 40 CFR 51.24). For the few areas of the
country where EPA has not transferred the P50 program, EPA applies 40 CFR
52.21 regulations to permit P50 sources. The mechanism of implementing the
revised modeling guideline is different for each of these situations.

-------
2
Areas where EPA Has PSD Permitting Authorlty
(1) As of October 9, 1986, EPA should not Issue a PSD per-mit when a
model other than that contained in the revised guideline is used to comply
with the air quality Impact analysis. An exception Is If EPA approval
was obtained for a specific case. The regional meteorologist should
carefully review all pending P50 permit applications to Insure that
current modeling guidance has been used.
States with P50 PermittIng Authority by Delegation
For both full and partial delegations, Regional Offices should
Initiate updating of the delegation by Informing the relevant reviewing
authority that the revised modeling guideline has been promulgated in
40 CFR 52.21. The Region should then determine which type of delegation
agreement exists for each State and take one of the following actions:
(2) For State and local agencies which have a delegation agreement
that specifies exactly which version of 40 CFR 52.21 (e.g., January 1, 1986)
Is to be used when processing PSD permits, the delegation agreement must
be amended to include the revised modeling guideline (e.g., as of October 9
1986).
(3) For State and local agencies which have a delegation agreement
that requires Incorporating all revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 into their PSD
permitting process, EPA should notify the State or local agencies that all
modeling done pursuant to the PSO regulations must comply with the revised
modeling guideline or must receive prior approval from EPA.
Regional Offices should publish a Feder’fl Register notice announcing
which States have modified their delegation agreements to Incorporate the
revised modeling guideline and which States have Incorporated the revised
modeling guideline Into their PSO permitting process.
States with P50 Permitting Authority by SIP
For States that have PSO permitting authority by SIP’s, the Regions
should review the State and local regulations to determine whether- the
existing regulations preclude the use of the revised modeling guideline
(e.g., rules which referen .e the 1978 guIdeline explicitly or Incorporate
4.0 CFR 52.21 by reference as of a date prior to September 9, 1986) or do
not explicitly preclude the use of the revised modeling guideline (e.g.,
a general statement that restricts air quality modeling to EPA—approved
models). The State or local agency must then take one of the following
actions:
(4) State or local agencies with SIP’s which preclude the use of the
revised guideline must revise their SIP to remove the reference to the
old modeling guideline and replace It with a reference to the revised
modeling guideline.

-------
3
(5) State and local agencies that do not explicitly preclude the use of
the revised modeling guideline can either revise their PSD regulation to
explicitly Include the revised modeling guideline or submit an enforceable
letter of comoitment in lieu of a regulatory revision. This cou nitment
letter mist mention that the generalized language now means that all PSD
permit applicants uist use the revised guideline models or models otherwise
approved by EPA.
Obviously, all SIP revisions must be accor lished through the regular
Federal Register process. All letters of contuitment nuist also be incorporated
by reference inti the SIP. To conserve resources, Regional Offices can
process as direct final action SIP packages that contain only revisions aimed
at 1mple enting the revised modeling guideline.
Current SIP Processing
Even though EPA stated In the September 9, 1986, Federal Register that
the revised modeling guideline would become effective on October 9, 1986, the
Act gives States 9 months (untIl July 9, 1987) to make the necessary changes
In their programs. To avoid disapproving the SIP revision, EPA should condi-
tionally approve SIP actions where the State has comaitted to: (a) revise
their regulations In a timely manner, and (b) limit PSO modeling to analyses
which co ly with the revised modeling guideline or models otherwise approved
for use by EPA. Mo PSD SIP will be approved unless it Incorporates the
revised modeling guideline.
Fol lo*-up
If a State refuses to make the necessary regulatory changes or conviitments,
EPA will withdraw permitting authority from the State for any source using a
nonguldellne model without prior EPA approval. The EPA will then prormilgate
40 CFR 52.21 into the SIP for such permits so that EPA retains permitting
authority for those permits. This, of course, requires full rulemaking
action In the Federal Register .
By the end of February 1987, please let Nancy Mayer know: (a) which
category (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 above) applies to each of your States; (b) what
actions are planned to incorporate the new guideline into each State’s P50
programs; and (c) schedule of when these actions will occur. Ms. Mayer may
be reached at:
FTS 629—5591
Mail Drop 15
Research Triangle Park, MC 27711

-------
4
cc: NSR Contacts, Regions 14
Chief, State Air Programs Branch
Region I
Chief, Technical Support Branch
Region I
Chief, Air Programs Branch
Regions II, I II, IV, VI, VIII, IX, and X
Chief, Air and Radiation Branch
Region V
Chief, Air Branch
Region VII
N. Mayer

-------
PN 165-86-12—01-026
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
DEC 1 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Need for Emission Cap on Co ex Nettin ources
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Developmen lvi Ofl (MD—iS)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V (5AR—26)
This is in response to your correspondence dated November 4, 1986,
concerning a request from a State to provide further guidance on: (1)
the appropriate context for defining an emissions decrease for prevention
of significant deterioration (P50), and (2) the level of administrative
effort appropriate to make an emissions decrease permanent and enforceable.
Your example Involves an applicant proposing to modIfy a source and wanting
to net out of PSD review by taking federally enforceable restrictions
o e cistln; tnlts.
The P50 rules at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(1) define a major modification as
• • . any physical change In or change in the method
of operation of a major stationary source that
would result in a significant net emissions increase
of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.
Net emissions Increase Is defined as:
the amount by which the sum of the following
exceeds zero: (a) Any increase in actual emissions
from a pdrtlcular physical change or change in
method of operation at a stationary source; and
(b) Any other increases and decreases In actual
emissions at the source that are contemporaneous
with the particular change and are otherwise
creditable.
Major modifications are, therefore, determined by examining changes in
actual emission levels at the source. Actual emissions are defined as:
• . • the actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
from an emissions unit, as determined in accordance
with paragraphs(b)(21)(ii) through (lv)

-------
—2—
(fl) In general, actual emissions as of a particular
date shall equal the average rate, in tons per
year,- at which the unit actually emitted the pollutant
during a two—year period which precedes the particular
date and which Is representative of normal source
operation. The Administrator shall allow the use
of a different time period upon a determination that
it Is more representative of normal source operation.
Actual emissions shall be calculated using the
unit’s actual operating hours, roduction rates, and
types of materials processed, stored or combusted
during the selected time period.
(iii) The Administrator may presume that source—
specific allowable emissions for the unit are
equivalent to the actual emissions of the unit.
(lv) For any emissions unit which has not begun
normal operations on the particular date, actual
emissions shall equal the potential to emit of
the Jflit on that date.
From subparagraoh (iv), it is clear that a new unit’s actual rate of
emissions Is equal to its potential to emit. Any federally enforceable
p Y5ic i and oper t1onal limitations which an applicant is willing to
acc 3t on the new emissions unit Is considered in ev iua:l ; the new
u ’:’s cteitf l t: e nit.
T determine the actual emissions decrease from the shutdown emissions
‘jnft, the reviet ing agency applies the method defined in subparagraph (ifl.
S2ecI’ically, the average rita, in tons per year, at which the unit
actually emitted di ing a 2 —year period prior to shutdown. Furthermore,
for 1e e’nissio s d zreasa from the shutdown to be creditable, the
requirement to shut down must be made federally enforceable.
fter the nesi unit’s potential to emit and the creditable emissions
decrease have been quantified, the reviewing agency should then evaluate
t ie extent to which the mod1 icat1on to the source will affect changes
to actual emissions levels at other emissions units. Of particular
concern (as you have pointed out in your example) is where existing
emissions units, historically operated at less than their full capacity
or allowable level, will increase operational levels for the sole purpose
of compensating for the shutdown unit. If the emissions units in question
do not have source—specific allowable emissions, actual emissions are
determined as set forth in subparagraph (Ii). If the reviewing agency
determines that an Increase in actual emissions at the existing emissions
units will be directly attributable to the startup of the new unit, then
the agency can act (via an emissions cao) to limit the increase so as to
ensure no net emissions increase at the source.

-------
—3—
Suppose, however, as specified in subparagraph (iii), actual e, issions
or the purpose of performing a TM net emissions lncreaseu calculation)
-e presumed to be source—specific al1owa le emissions for these units;
in such a case, there Is probably no increase in actuaI” emissions.
This results from the fact that, though in reality emissions may increase
at these units, their actual emissions have been presumed to be equiva-
lent to their allowable emissions and their allowable emissions have not
changed. In such a case, after the modification, the atmosphere may in
reality experience an increase in emissions. For example, emissions at
the source after modification could equal the source’s previous emissions
level (three units operating at 67 percent rather than four units at 50
percent) plus the additional emissions from the new emissions unit. In
effect, a significant emissions Increase occurs at the source without PSD
re’. i ew.
Although the regulations provide a presumption for the use of allowable
emissions when soarce—specific limits are established, the prear b1e at 45
F 52713 (August 7, 1980) states that:
The presumption that federally enforceable source—
specific ret.luirements correctly reflect actual operating
conditions should be rejected by EPA or a state, if
reliable evidence is available which shows that actual
emissions differ from the level established in the SI?
or the peri it.
irther along that section of the preamble states that:
EPA, a state, or source remains free to rebut
the presumption by demonstrating that the source—
specific requirement is not representative of
actual issions. If this occurs, however, EPA
would encourage states to revise the permits or
the SIP to reflect actual source emissions.
Therefore, a State may act to revise source—soecific •require nents if
such a revision in the State’s vied is needed to establish allowable
emissions limits consistent with historical actual e:nissions. Accordingly,
in the modification scenerio you describe, a State may act to place a
federally enforceable emissions cap, based on historical actual emissions,
on the source. It can do this on the knowledge (or presumption) that the
three remaining boilers will (or would logically be expected to) operate
at a higher capacity In the future to make up for the shutdown unit.
Simply shifting the load like this should not result in a ucredit that
can be used to net a new emissions unit out of review. The emissions cap
would prevent such an occurrence.

-------
-4-
If the modification Is a direct replacement, then an emissions cap
s required on the new unit’s production capacity to ensure that its
potentIal to emit, when balanced against the shutdown credit, does not
result in a significant ennssions increase. Depending on the available
shutdown credit, this may result in a limit in production capacity at the
source.
For a major source to net out of PSD review, a permit agency must
take all administrative measures necessary to ensure that the requirements
to decrease emissions are explicit and meet the criteria for beIng
consIdered federally enforceable.” The credits may come from any emissIons
unit within the source as long as the emissions unit meets the criterIa
for beIng a part of that TM major source.”
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please have your
staff contact David Solomon of the New Source Review Section at 629—5697.

-------
PN 165—86-10-21-025
r UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
- - Research Triangie Park, North Carolina 27711
OCT 1 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of P 50 to Porti of a P1 a,p( Constructed
in Phases Without Permits
FaOM: Darryl 0. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Developmenj ivi,f n (MD—is)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V (5AR—26)
This Is in response to your correspondence, dated September 30, 1986,
gard1ng the applicability of prevention of significant deterioration
(P50) review to a minor source that becomes major through a series of
modifications.
Your memo describes a series of modifications to an initial minor
source. With the first modification (A), the original source maintains
its minor status. The second modification (B) puts the source over the
aj r source thresho’d, and the third modification (C) results In an emissions
Increase areater than the PSD significance levels. To complicate matters,
the original source was not required to obtain a permit under the State
implementation plan (SIP) and all subsequent modifications were constructed
.ilthout SIP permits. Tne source is then discovered at the point modification
(C) is made.
You present two schools of thought with respect to the applicability
3f P50 review to the source.
1) PSO review is applicable only to modification (C) or,
2) the State should view the plant as it first appeared to them, i.e.
as a major source without a P50 permit. This option would requl-e
that best available control technology (BACT) be applied to the
total plant.
In general, the first determination is correct. The fact that the
initial minor source and subsequent modification were not subject to,
o’ failed to receive, a SIP permit has no bearing on applying the rules
f PSO applicability. Except under the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(r)(4),
tne S0 egulat ons dO not contemplate the retroacti-ve aoplication of PSO

-------
2
“eview to o’eviousy minor sources. A BACT ev,ew applies only to the
emissions units whiCh define a major modification to an existing major
sou ce or a new major source. Howeve , the ai quality imoact portion of
a PSD review must . consider, as either baseline or increment consuming,
the emissions from all emissions units at the source.
!t the extreme case whe’e the source has aoe a deliberate effort to
circiiiivent P 50 review (by the systematic construction of carefully sized
emissions wilts which only in the aggregate would trigger review) a
permitting agency may, however, make a finding that PSO applies to the
total 2lar t. Such a finding would have to be based on c ear evidence
that t i source made a conscious effort to escape eview by knowingly
mis epreSeiting the Intended source size through tne calculated juggling
actu& a o scheduled construction of emission units. Fo such evidence,
the pe nitting agency may requi e that the source provide detailed information
regarding original construction plans, timing and construction contracts,
emission unit purchase orders, and project financing. The source should
be compared to similar facilities to determine the industrial norm regarding
final sou :e size and configuration and const—uCtion scheduling.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please have your staff
contact David Solomon of the New Source RevieN Section at 8-629—5591.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
______ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
•4 —c ’
7 JUL 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUSJECT: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (P50)
DefinItion of Modlfication
FROM: Gerald A. Linison, Di
Office of Air Quality Planning am ‘ards (MD—iD)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V and IX
• Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division
Regions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, and X
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has recently
received an Inquiry regarding the applicability of PSD review to two
facilities which would replace wet scrubbers with bagháuses. The baghouses
would Improve control of particulate matter but allow a significant net
increase of sulfur dioxide (502) emissions. The question is whether tne
prcposed change would be subject to PSD review under the Federal PSD regu-
lations as a major modification. For the reasons discussed below, I have
concluded that this change would constitute a major modification. The
Office of General Counsel (OGC) has concurred In the conclusions of this
memorandum.
The P50 review applies to new major stationary sources and to major
modifications. 1 Subject to certain qualifications and exemptions, a
tr.ajor modlficatlonw is a “physical change In or change in the method of
operation of a major stationary source that would result in a significant
net emissions Increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under the
ACtU 4O CFR 51.24(b) (2) and 52.21(b)(2)]. There is general agreement
1 Note that, although the subject cases involve P50 review, the same
Issue exists with respect to major source nonattainment new source review
(N.SR) permitting pursuant to Part D of the Clean Air Act (Act). Because
these cases involve P50, and because nonattainrnent NSR has basic program
requirements that make this issue less likely to arise In that area, this
memorandum focuses on P50. The conclusions of this memorandum apply
equally to nonattainnient NSR, however.

-------
2
that the proposed change constitutes a major mddification within the
express terms of the PSD regulations. 2 For purposes of brevity, I am
omitting the specific details of that analysis.
The true area of controversy, and the focus of this memorandum, Is
the relevance of an exemption from review under the new source performance
standards (NSPS). Specifically, the NSPS regulations provide that the
following shall not be considered a modification:
The addition or use of any system or device whose
primary function is the reduction of air pollutants,
except where an emission control system Is removed
or replaced by a system which the Administrator
determines to be less environmentally beneficial
C40 CFR 60.14(e) (5)).
The statutory definition of modification for both PSD and NSPS purposes
is presented in section 111 of the Act. It has been Stated that, for
this reason, the subject exemption automatically applies to PSD even if
It is not expressly part of the P50 regulations (memorandum from Edward
E. Reich, Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, OAQPS, and
William F. Pedersen, Acting Associate General Counsel, OGC, to Allyn M.
Davis and Paul Seals of EPA Region VI, dated April 21, 1983).
The better approach, which I am setting forth today, Is that the
subject exemption does not automatically affix itself to the P50 regulatlon
gather, any such exemptions may be made applicable to P50 only by express
r l emaking.
There are several reasons for concluding that EPA did not intend to
make the exemption fri question here part af the P50 system, beyond the
obvious lack of language including it in the regulations. First, the
program is oriented toward ambient air quality as well as technology
based controls, in contrast to the NZPS program which addresses only the
latter. The P53 review Is a tool for air quality management and comprehen-
sive consideration of increases of any pollutant regulated under the Act.
The NSPS exemption is inconsistent with this approach. In addition, it
seems very unlikely that ZPA would have imported the Nenvironmentally
beneficial test Into the P50 applicability calculus, inasmuch as that
calculus is strongly quantitative and objective in its orientation, yet
the NSPS test Is highly qualitative and judgmental. In any event, the
overall P50 calculus Is simply different from the NSPS approach, and
hence one would have expected EPA to give express indication of an intention
to bring the NSPS exemption into the P50 calculus if Indeed It had had that
intention.
2 The owner of the facilities has argued that this activity constitut
routine maintenance, repair, or replacement, thus allowing it to rely on
exemption from review E 0 CFR S1.24(b)(2)(iii)(a) and 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(afl.
1 conclude, however, that this situation does not fall within that exemption.

-------
3
The fact that both programs use the definition of modification
contained in section 111 of the Act Is not, lrr Itself, sufficient to
prove that Congress Intended that NSPS exemptions then In effect would
automatically be Incorporated Into PSD. Congress has, of course, occa-
sionally ratified existing regulatory programs or approaches ( e.g. ,
40 CFR 51, AppendIx S and uncodified section 129 of Public Law 95—95),
but Such Is generally done with an express Indication of that Intent. I
have found no such Indication In this case. Apparently the only legisla-
tive history on this subject is the remark that Congress Intended to
conform the meaning of U dif1cationN for PSD purposes to 1 usage In other
parts of the Act C123 Cong. Rec. 1111957 (November 1, 1977)]. Given the
distinct differences between the NSR regulatory processes promulgated in
response to the 1977 amendments and the preexisting NSPS regulations
defining TM modffication, It seems clear that Congress desired to conform
the usage of that term In only a broad sense.
Finally, I believe that the Federal Register preamble segment cited
In the April 21, 1g83, memorandum (43 FR 26 80, 26396 , June 19, 1978)
should not be read broadly In support of automatic Incorporation of NSPS
provisions. That preamble, Involving review of fuel switches, addressed a
regulatory reaffirmation of an exemption which had already been promulgated
into the original 1974 P 50 regulations.
For these reasons, the subject exemption does not apply to P50 and
the earlier memorandum cited on this topic is withdrawn.
cc: R. Bauman
A. Eckert
T. Helms
E. Reich
0. Tyler
P. Wyckoff

-------
PN 165-85-06-28-023
June 28, 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Seasonal Afterburner Policy, Applicability of Part D New Source
Review Requirements
FROM: Robert 0. Bauman, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch, CPDD (MD—15)
TO: William S. Baker, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region II
This is In response to your memorandum dated March 8, 1985, in which
you requested guidance on whether emissions increases associated with the
winter shutdown of VOC control equipment must be reviewed for applicability
for new source review (NSR). Your proposal would allow sources which have
historically been using the EPA Seasonal Afterburner Policy to exempt the
increases in emissions for NSR applicability. All other sources are prohibited
from exempting any emissions from the applicability requirements. These
sources include any sources which deviate from the EPA Seasonal Afterburner
Policy, existing sources which although able to use the EPA Seasonal Afterburner
Policy have not chosen to apply it, and all new sources of air pollution.
I support your proposal except for one minor change. All sources In existence
before the date of this memo, which have not previously requested an exemption
under the EPA Seasonal Afterburner Policy should not be required to evaluate
the associated inc—ease in emissions for NSR applicability if the exemption
is processed as a SIP revision.
This policy position has been agreed on by Office of General Counsel
and Regulatory Reform staffs which should avoid any further revisions in
the near term. The attached outline summarizes the relationship between
the EPA Seasonal Afterburner Policy and NSR.
Attachment
cc: M. Levin 4. N IIZ.-’ôo—’Z-o’-°33
W. Petersen
D. Tyler
bcc: N. Mayer
M. Trutna

-------
June 28, 1985.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEASONAL AFTERBuR:4ER POLICY
AND NSR APPLICABILITY
1. Sources which have historically been using the EPA Se3sonal Afterburner
Policy will not be required to evaluate the associated increase in emissions
for NSR applicability.
2. Sources in existence as of the date of this memo, which have not previously
requested an exemption under the EPA Seasonal Afterburner Policy, will not
be required to evaluate the associated increase in emissions for NSR applicability
If the exemption is processed as a SIP revision.
3. New sources which request the u e of th2 EPA Seasona Afterburner Policy
ni st be reviewed accordingly:
a. Evaluate the associated increase in emissions w”en calculating
potential emissions for applicability purposes.
b. If the request results in a source being classiied as a new major
source or major modification, then require:
i. Offsets for all emissions on a tons—per—yea basis,
ii. Statewide compliance, and
iii. LAER, which may include seasonal shutdown of afterburners if
the State determines this shutdown meets standard indust.y practices for the
use of afterburners.
4. Any other State exemption which allows increases in VOC’s during the
wintertime which deviate from the EPA Seasonal Afterburner Policy (e.g.,
for boilers using oil) will be required to evaluate the associated increase
in emissions as discussed in (3) above.

-------
Ill U1LJ.L JC.t_
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WkSHINGTON,DC 20460
4 10 t
r r i
LL...L? I
O CE OF
AIR AWO LADIAT1O,
N EMORANDrJM
SUBJECT: ITnprovthg New Source Review (NSR) Implementation
T. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air arid Radiation (ANR-443
Regional Administrator
Regions I—X
On June 27, 1986, I established a special task force to address
growing concerns about the consistency and certainty of permits issued
under the Clean Air Act’s prevention of significant deterioration and
nonattainj nt area NSR programs. Based on the findings arid recanmendatjons
of the task force, I am today establishing certain program initiatives
designed to improve the tijieliriess, certainty, arid effectiveness of these
pr o r ams.
A great deal of effort will be required to overc ne the problems
which have developed, but it is my belief that these problems, with your
full c000eratjon and assistance, can be resolved so that these essential
air management prograirs can fulfill their intended roles. Therefore, I
urge each of you to provide the maximum priority and resource cor7lnitinents
available to the task.
The outstanding concern we now face in these programs is inadequate
implementation. The Office of Air and Radiation intends to apply its
resource c iunitments so as to enhance its ability to provide technical
support and guidance, training, workshops, auditing, and enforc rent
support to the Regions and delegated programs. The Regional Offices must
make a corresporid.irig resource coTrmitnent for these efforts to succeed.
Accordingly, I am requesting that you initiate a self-evaluation of current
NSR ac.jvitjes and, to the extent necessary, refocus Regional attention on
these programs in an effort to improve and enhance NSR program implementation.
To ensure that we maintain the flexibility to make this effort a
dynamic one, capable of sensing and adjusting to the needs of the program,
I intend to establish an informal group of our colleagues to report to me
on progress in implementing the initiatives discussed below. The mission
of the group is to provide the feed ck necessary to maximize the
effectiveness of NSR implementation and to make NSR reflective of air
program need .

-------
—2—
The foU ring is a list of the specific program initiatives I am
hereby instituting to bring about improvements in NSR implementation:
Trackinc Permit Actions——Initially and until such tine as pet-nat
cuality can be assured, I am r uirinc that eacn Regional Office establish
(if not already in place) a program to ensure a timely and comprehensive
review of all State and local agency—issued major source permits and
certain minor source permits. In 1enentation of the program will be made
part of the Regional Office Management System and will reguire the “real
time” exchance and- review of information between the Regional Office and
the State and local agencies when a key milestone is reached during the
permitting process.
Effective calulunication between the permitting agency and the Regional
Office is essential to improving program implementation. Therefore, the
Regional Offices will need to ensure that State and local permitting
agencies follow certain notification procedures such as:
— Notify the Regional Office and other affected parties (e.g., the
Federal land manager if Class I areas are impacted), within a reasonable
time, of the receipt of a new major source permit application. This can
take the form of a complete copy of the application itself or a brief
description of the proposed project. Notification can be made as each
application is received or the information may be submitted to the Re onal
Office in a periodic report.
— Submit to the Regional Office a comolete public. notif ication
package at the beginning of the public notice period. The package rrust
contain the public notice language, the proposed permit, and a technical
analysis deTronstrating how the proposed project complies with the technical
review recuirements of the regulations (e.g., best available control
technology (BACT) or lowest achievable emission rate (LAER), air quality
impacts or offsets].
— Submit to the Regional Office a copy of the final precon.struction
permit when issued, including a response to any appropriate cc wents
submitted during the public cannent period.
— Submit to the Recional Office a copy of the operating permit when
issued.
1 , .kewise, when informed of a permit action, the Regional Office is
responsible for the timely review of the information, specifically:
— Screen incoming information on permit applications for potential
issues or concerns and, if warranted, communicate them to the permitting
agency.
— Perform a timely and comprehensive review of the public notice
package and, if warranted, provide comment during the public caTurent
period. To aid in this task, I have directed the Office of Air Quality

-------
—3—
Planning and Standards (O PS) to start rk on the development of a
permit review checklist for use by the Regional Office during the public
comment period. The checklist will also be useful to State and local
agencies as a tool for self—audit and to understand what the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) errphasizes when reviewing a proposed permit.
— Review any resoonse to comments and the final permit to ensure
that any outstanding concerns have been resolved satisfactorily.
— Review tne permit to operate to ensure that it is consistent with
the preconstruction permit.
— Take prar t and appropriate action to deter the issuance or use of
permits which fail to meet rninimel Federal requirements. I have directed
OAQPS to work with the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Enforce—
rnent and Compliance Monitoring to develop guidance for the Regional
Offices on the appropriate legal mechanisms and procedures for handling
deficient permit act1or s.
— To the extent practicable, prior to permit issuance, review
potential minor permit actions which exerrpt an otherwise n jor source or
modification from a r jor review (e.g. ,“synthetic” minor sources, n jor
sources netting out of review, and 99.9 or 249.9 tons per year sources).
The most critical element of these initiatives is the Regional Office
review of proposed permit actions during the public comment period. The
FY 1935 national air audit sh ed widespread serious permit deficiencies,
rr ny of which could have been corrected without interfering with State
and local agency processing if dealt with by EPA during the public
comment period. By uniformly reviewing all mejor source permit actions
during the carurent period, EPA is able to address deficient reviews or
permits before the final permit is issued. This not only promotes more
consistency in the permitting process among the States, but also provides
the hi est degree of certainty to the applicant that the permit will not
be challenged by EPA at a later date. Moreover, if the permit is not
reviewed and commented on prior to issuance, the possibility of successfully
challenging the action is greatly diminished, as is the opportunity to
improve the enforceability of the permit.
BACT Determinations--Of all the NSR processes, BAC1’ (and LA )
determinatjon.s are perhaps the most misunderstood and the least correctly
appliri. The BAC alternatives, if presented by the applicant at all,
are often poorly doQrnented or biased to acnieve the decision the applicant
desires.
To bring consistency to the BACI ’ process, I have authorized OAQPS to
proceed with developing specific guidance on the use of the “top—do n M
approach to BACT. The first step in this approach is to determine, for
the emission source in Question, the most stringent control available
for a similar or identical source or source category. If it can be sh in
that this level of control is technically or economically infeasible for

-------
—4—
the source in question, then the next rr t stringent level of control is
determined and similarly evaluated. This process continues until the
BACT level under cons deration cannot be eliminated by any su tantial or
unique technical, environmental, or economic objections. Thus, the
“top—d n” approach shifts the burden of proof to the applicant to justify
why the proposed source is unable to apply the best tecrinology available.
It also differs from other 7rocesses in that it requires the applicant to
analyze a control technology only if the applicant opposes that level of
control; the other processes required a full analysis of all possible
types and levels of control acove the baseline case.
The “top—d n” approach is essentially already reguired for municipal
waste combustors pursuant to the June 22, 1987, Administrator’s r r nd to
Region IX of the H-Power BACT decision and the OAQPS June 26, 1987,
“Operational Guidance on Control Technology for New and Modified Municipal
Waste Combustors (MWC’s).” It is also currently being successfully
i 1 lemented by ir rry permitting agencies and some of the Regional Offices
for all sources. I have therefore determined that it should be adopted
across the board.
In the interim, while OAQPS develops specific guidance on the
M top—dc n” process, I am r uesting the Regional Office to apply it to
their BACT determinations and to strongly encourage State and local
agencies to do likewise. Moreover, when a State agency proposes as BACI’
a level of control that appears to be inconsistent with the “tcp—da.m”
concept, such as failure to ad uately consider the irore stringent control
options, the Regional 3ff ice is to provide comment to that agency. A
final BACT determination which still fails to reflect ad uate consideration
of the factors that would have been relevant using a “top—do ’in” type of
analysis shall be considered deficient by EPA.
Traininc—No for al training workshops specific to NSR have been
held since 1980. Many State and local agencies, as well as the Regional
Off ices, have experienced a high rate of NSR personnel turnover since
then. Many of the basic problenE that are occurring in NSR implementation
can be traced to the lack of comprehensive, continuing training for new
Regional Office and State agency personnel.
To rectify this situation, in FY 1988, OAQPS will work on developing
meterials for a comprehensive training program in the form of Regional
workshops to be conãicted in FY 1989.
L*Turencing in FY 1989, biannual Hea uarters—sponsored NSR workshops
will be conducted at each Regional Office with State and local agencies
attendance encairaged. Workshop topi will cover the NSR rules and
policy, BACT and LAER determinations, effective permit writing, h .i to
review a proposed permft and audit a permit file, and other program areas
as needed. Appropriate 1 .j trained Regional staff are to then hold these
workshops at their resr> - . ‘e State agencies. The NSR experts from
Hea uarters or NSR ex > from other Regions will be available to assist.

-------
—5—
In addition, Re onal Offices should reserve the fun necessary to
send at least one EPA staff representative to the NSR workshops (for EPA
or]ly) held serT .annually at Denver, Colorado (February), and Southern Pines,
North Carolina (July). Attendance at these workshops plays a vital role
.n keeping the egions upto date on program implementation and new and
emerging policy.
Policy and Guidance——continuous litigation and regulatory changes
have combined with the complexity of NSR rules to create a log jam of the
oolicy and guidanèe needed to help interpret and effectively apply these
rules. Therefore, I am directing that in FY 1989 O?QPS dedicate at least
one staff person to ensuring a timely response to policy and guidance
reQuests. In the interim, I intend to continue O? PS’s efforts to
comoile and or nize NSR reference and guidance materials, such as the
NSR electronic bulletin board.
I realize that the initiatives discussed above constitute only the
first steps of a continuing process to address concerns and needs relating
to NSR prograiTI implei entation. In recognition of the possible need to
intain flexibility in managing and iii roving the NSR process I will, as
indicated earlier, establish a group to nonitor our progress under this
new policy. The group will be comprised of representatives from EPA
Hea uarters and Regional Offices and we will consult with State and
local agency officials as part of our effort to obtain timely feedbad as
we impleiient these initiatives.
Additional specific guidance on improvements in the program areas
discussed above will be issued in the near future. In the meantime, each
Regional Office is directed to work closely with its State and local
agencies to ensure that all aspects of the NSR permit programe comply
with all applicable State and Federal program r uire T ents.
Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Please direct them to
Gary McCutchen, Chief, New Source Review Section, -15, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711 (FTS 629—5592).
cc: Air Division Directors, Regions I—X

-------
r i 1OD- /-U9- -1J 1
Sr 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Othce of Air Quality Plann:ng and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

SEP22 i 1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of North Co Recovery PSD Remand
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Direct
Office of Air Quality a n ng and Standards (MD—la)
TO: Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Regions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, and X
On June 3, 1986, the Administrator remanded a prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permit decision, involving the North County Resource
Recovery project, to Region IX for their reconsideration. The permit was
for a 33-megawatt, 1000 tons-per-day facility to be located in San Marcos,
California. At issue was whether appropriate consideration had been given,
within the best available control technology (BAd) determination, to the
environmental effects of pollutants not subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act (Act).* The remand strongly affirms that the permitting
authority should take the toxic effects of unregulated pollutants into
account in making BACT decisions for regulated pollutants. This obligation
arises from section 169(3) of the Act, which defines BACT as the maximum
degree of emissions decrease which the permitting authority determines is
achievable, taking into account uenvironmental . . . inpacts. TM Essential
to this process is the notification to the public of how the effects of
toxic air pollutants, including those that are unregulated, have been
considered in the PSD review and the subsequent consideration of the comments
in making the final BACT decision. The purpose of this memorandum is to
advise you of the impact of the remand on PSD permitting and to provide
implementation guidance. This document builds upon and makes final the
draft guidance of August 1986.
Coverage
Although the Act has given us the authority to review directly the
considerable range of regulated pollutants, the remand clearly indicates
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should incorporate considera-
tion of all pollutants within its PSD determinations for all sources subject
to PSD. This result Is consistent with the fact that the PSD permitting
process is charged . . . to protect public health and welfare from any
*A Nregulated pollutant,u or upollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act, is one which is addressed by a national ambient air
quality standard, a new source performance standard, or is listed pursuant
to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants program.

-------
2
actual or potential adverse effect . . . from air pollution . . . .“ and that
increases in air pollution should be permitted “. . . only after careful
evaluation of all the consequences . . . .“ [ section 160(1) and (2)].
Revisions to State implementation plans (SIP’s), to comport with the
Administrator’s decision, should not be necessary. State or local agencies
with delegated P50 programs automatically track this change in policy.
Agencies implementing their own SIP—approved programs are also unlikely to
need any regulatory changes. This is because the remand is based on an
interpretation of Act language, notably the definition of BAd, that is in
most cases already contained in the plan. I ask that you confirm this with
your States and applicable local agencies.
Transition
As with any change in the way EPA does business, we have developed a
transition plan for its implementation. The situations can be addressed
most logically by dividing all PSD sources into three groups based on phase
of permitting activity: those sources for which permit applications had
not been filed, those for which permits had already been granted, and those
for which applications had been filed but permits not yet granted.
First, all PSD sources for which complete applications had not been
filed as of the Administrator’s June 3, 1986, decision are fully subject to
the remand’s requirements. Earlier applications present more complex
policy considerations.
One could argue, since the Administrator’s decision is an interpretation
of existing Act provisions, rather than a new requirement, that all PSD
permits issued under the terms of the 1977 Amendments to the Act should be
subject to the remand. However, program stability and equity to sources, In
this second group, that have relied upon properly issued PSO permits militate
strongly against such an approach. For these reasons, I have decided to
exempt from the requirements of the remand all sources holding finally
Issued permits as of June 3, 1986. (Subsequent major modifications to such
existing sources are, of course, subject to PSD review, including the
application of the requirements of this remand.)
The third group of sources consists of those for which PSD permits
were in the pipeline (i.e., complete application filed but permits not yet
Issued) as of the date of the remand. It is appropriate that these sources
also be subject to the terms of the remand. However, for permit applications
which have successfully passed through the public comment period without
environmental effects concerns being raised, the Regional Office may, at its
discretion, Issue these In final without further delay.
The above enunciated transition policy applies directly to all EPA
permit issuance procedures and also to those used by State agencies Issuing
PSO permits under a delegation of authority agreement pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21(u). This transition policy does not automatically apply to PSD

-------
3
permit decisions by States under SIP—approved P50 programs, except to the
extent that environmental effects issues are raised by commenters. The
policy does apply prospectively in a uniform fashion to all applications
filed after June 3, 1986. States with SIP—approved PSD programs are, of
course, responsible for enunciating reasonable transition schemes and I ask
that you encourage them to adopt policies consistent with this one. These
transition schemes, as with the substantive program itself, are unlikely to
require rulemaking; however, the policies should be set forth in formal
statements so as to further the goals of public awareness and consistent
application. These policies and their implementation will be reviewed
within the National Air Audit System to assess the need to require greater
conformance.
Required Analyses
The BACT requirement outlined in section 169(3) of the Act contemplates
a decision process in which the best available controls are defined for
each regulated pollutant that a PSD source would emit in significant amounts.
This case—by—case process is to take into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs. The toxic effects of unregulated pollutants
are to be accounted for in deciding if the BACT otherwise being prescribed
for regulated pollutants still represents the appropriate level and type of
control. If the reviewing authority judges the potential environmental
effects of such unregulated pollutants to be of possible concern to the
public, then the final BACT decision for regulated pollutants should in all
cases address these effects and reflect, as appropriate, control beyond what
might otherwise have been chosen.
A recent remand determination made by the Administrator In another case
provides further elucidation of the BACT process. In that case, Honolulu
Program of Waste Energy Recovery (H—Power), PSD Appeal No. 86—6, Remand
Order (June 23, 1987), the Administrator ruled that a PSD permitting
authority has the burden of demonstrating that adverse economic impacts are
so significant as to justify the failure to require the most effective
pollution controls technologically achievable as BACT.
The broad mandate with respect to toxics that is presented by the
remand is not readily amenable to highly detailed national guidance that
provides the appropriate permitting requirement in each case. There is no
specific formula for making BACT decisions; this is a case-by—case process
involving the judgment of the reviewing authority. While it may be possible
to develop a framework of guidance based upon such factors as risk assessment
and reference doses, this would entail a large effort that seems inappropriate
at this time. It Is more practical, however, for EPA to develop guidance
for specific source categories that are of particular importance. The EPA
has recently provided such BACT guidance with respect to municipal waste
combustors. See memorandum entitled Operational Guidance on Control
Technology for New and Modified Municipal Waste Combustors, TM from Gerald A.
Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated
June 26, 1987. Guidance on other source categories may be issued from time
to time as appropriate.

-------
4
Today’s policy charges the PSD review authority with analyzing at the
outset the environmental in acts of proposed construction projects with
respect to air toxics which might be of concern, even if such matters are
not initially raised by the public. Other types of environmental effects
should also be addressed in response to public concerns, within the limits
of the ability to do so. For PSD reviews consistent with this policy, each
applicable permitting authority should Initiate an evaluation of toxic air
pollutants (unregulated as well as regulated) which the proposed project
would emit in amounts potentially of concern to the public. The review
authority should evaluate unregulated pollutants for both carcinogenic and
noncarcinogeniC effects. The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
(NATICH) data base contains considerable information relevant to evaluating
the effect, sources, and control techniques available for unregulated
pollutants. I encourage you to urge permitting authorities to use NATICH
as a source of information as they conduct the analyses. Further information
may be obtained by calling the NATICH staff at 629—5519.
The response to the Administrator made by EPA Region IX in its analysis
of the North County permitting decision is attached. Although this example
illustrates only one of several acceptable approaches, it is a well thought
out analysis that provides a useful example to consider for future permitting
exercises. -
Headquarters has several other mechanisms In effect to support analyses
with respect to toxics. These include a recent report which helps to
estimate toxic air emissions from various sources (Compiling Air Toxics
Emission Inventories, EPA-450/4—86-O1O). The burden of proof regarding
emissions estimates, of course, rests with the applicant, but the techniques
discussed in the document should be useful in determining if the applicant’s
estimates are reasonable and address appropriate pollutants. In addition,
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has released a control technology
manual which is valuable in evaluating how control devices for particulate
matter and volatile organic compounds differ In their abilities to control
various toxic species of these criteria pollutants (Control Technologies
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, EPA—625/6—861014).
Support will also be available on a case—by—case basis from the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and ORD. In particular, we
have formed a control technology center to provide assistance to the review
authority In determining BACT. This center can offer a range of activities,
including evaluation of source emissions, identification of control techniques,
development of control cost estimates, identification of operation and
maintenance procedures, and, in a few situations, In—depth engineering
assistance on individual problems. Other planned activities include the
publication of technical guidance to assist In the evaluation of selected
types of sources. Contact points for the control technology center are
Lee Beck in OAQPS (629—0800) and Sharon Nolen in ORD (629—7607). We expect
this support to limit the effort required of PSD reviewing authorities.

-------
5
Public Participation
One of the most important features of this policy is the requirement
that the affected public be fully informed of the potential toxic emissions
from a proposed project and of what the reviewing authority has done to
minimize this potential within the BACT decision. A specific discussion of
toxics concerns in a technical support document might be helpful tn accom-
plishing this information transfer. Additional concerns related to the
environmental effects of unregulated pollutants raised by cornmenters must
then be addressed in the final BACT determination. This process is of
central importance to PSD permitting and comments received must be adequately
addressed in the final decision. Strong public participation is consistent
with the P50 goals contained in section 160 of the Act, which relate to
informing the public of increased air pollution, including that due to
unregulated pollutants.
It should be noted that although these analyses are used in the BACT
decision, they will not be used as the basis for disapproving a project
that has agreed to apply BAd. In other words, today’s policy requires that
toxics be considered in the control of the proposed project only to the
extent that the level of control chosen as BACT is achievable.
Enforcement
In the case of delegated (as opposed to SIP—approved) PSD programs,
EPA has various enforcement tools. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19, any party
that participated in the public proceedings with respect to a proposed
permit may, within 30 days of the final permit decision, petition the
Administrator of EPA to review any condition of that permit decision. The
Administrator may also seek to review any such permit condition on his own
initiative. Should this appeals procedure be unavailable in a particular
case, EPA has the authority, depending upon the facts of the case, to
withdraw the delegation with respect to an individual permit that is being
or has been issued inconsistently with the terms of that delegation. Thus,
EPA may be able to directly intervene in the issuance of a P50 permit to
ensure implementation of today’s policy. This withdrawal of delegation is
not the preferred course of action but it may be available If needed.
The consideration of air toxics in PSD permitting is a requirement of
the Act and, through the definition of BAd, is incorporated in the SIP’s.
Therefore, violation of this policy would constitute a SIP violation and be
enforceable by EPA. Section 113(a) of the Act provides for Federal issuance
of a notice of violation in the case of a violation of a SIP. If the
violation continues for more than 30 days, section 113(b) provides that the
Administrator shall commence an action for injunction or civil penalty, or
both. In addition, section 167 of the Act specifically provides that EPA
take legal action to prevent the construction of a major emitting facility
that does not conform to the requirements of PSO. Under section 167, EPA
can issue an administrative order or commence a civil action. Since no

-------
6
notice of violation would be necessary, in this case, EPA can use section
167 to order immediate cessation of construction or operation. Note also
that this section has been construed as providing EPA with authority to take
enforcement action against sources out of compliance with P50 even if they
have already been constructed. These remedies are more likely to be used
in the case of SIP-approved programs than with delegated programs, for
which an appeal under 40 CFR Part 124 would generally be the preferred
course of action.
Enforcement actions are pursued after reviewing a range of factors
relevant to each particular case. For this reason, I am not setting forth
detailed provisions as to required enforcement measures. There are, however,
certain situations in which enforcement action is generally appropriate.
These include procedural deficiencies, such as failure to solicit public
comment on air toxics issues for applicable permits, and failure to address
the air toxics concerns raised by public comment. Enforcement with respect
to permits already in the pipeline should follow the transition scheme in
today’s policy for delegated programs and the State or local agreement
established with EPA for SIP—approved programs.
The Act and the PSO regulations require that States submit a copy of
the public notice for proposed permits to EPA. I urge the Regional Offices
to ensure that such notices are submitted and are reviewed for conformance
with the criteria contained in this document. Although enforcement mecha-
nisms are available to address noncomplying sources, our efforts to implement
today’s policy will be much more effective if taken prospectively and in
coordination with the State pemitting process.
Conclusion
Today’s guidance summarizes the broad ranging impact of the June 3,
1986, remand and provides some insight into the analyses and public
disclosure that now should take place. We will continue to support and
monitor subsequent decisions and to assess the need for more detailed or
expansive guidance. Questions on today’s guidance should be addressed to
Michael Trutna (629-5345) or Kirt Cox of OAQPS (629-5399).
Attachment
cc: C. Potter
A. Eckert
D. Clay
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I x
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, C i. 94105
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 1986
SUBJECT: North County Resource Recovery Associates
PSD4PPefl o/ 85,2
FROM:
Air Management Dxvi&lon, Region 9
TO: Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This is in response to the June 3, 1986 remand of
Region 9’s April 2, 1985 determination to issue a prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to ‘the North
County Resource Recovery Associates for the construction
of a 1000 ton per day resource recovery facility. The
remand charged Region 9 with reconsidering the effects
of unregulated pollutants when making PSD determinations.
Region 9 has reviewed the relevant BACr decisions
and has prepared a response to the Administrator’s remand,
as recommended in the July 21, 1986 guidance memo from
Gerald A. Emisori, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Our response with supporting materials
is attached.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed
materials please contact me at 454—8201 (E’TS) or have your
staff contact Wayne A. Blackard, Chief of our New Source
Section at 454—8249 (rrs).
Enclosures

-------
RESPONSE TO PSD REflAND
NORTH COUNTY RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY CENTER
(PSD Appeal No. 85—2)
On April 2, 1985 the Director of the Air Management
Division, EPA Region 9, made a determination to issue a Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the North County
Resource Recovery Associates (NCRRA) for the construction and
operation of a 33 megawatt, 1000 ton per day resource recovery
facility. During the following appeal period EPA received
three petitions filed pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19 requesting the
Administrator to review Region 9’s decision to issue the PSD
permit. The Office of the Administrator reviewed the petitioners’
comments and Region 9’s responses to the comments and determined
that Region 9 had satisfactorily addressed all of the petitioners’
allegations with the exception of Region 9’s assertion that EPA
lacked the authority to consider’ pollutants not regulated by
the Clean Air Act when making a PSD determination. The Adminis-
trator felt that Region 9’s assertion was overly broad and that
when making a PSD determination, in particular a best available
control technology (BACT) decision, a permitting agency must
consider not only the environmental impact of the controlled
regulated pollutant but must also consider the environmental
impacts of any unregulated pollutants that might be affected by
the choice of control technology. For this reason the Adminis-
trator remanded the PSD determination to Region 9 for recon-
sideration and action consistent with the above interpreta-
tion of EPA authority.
In response to the above, Region 9 has reviewed the BACT
decisions made for the NCRRA PSD permit. Under the PSD regula-
tions NCRRA must apply PACT to control emissions of SO 2 , NOx,
lead, mercury, and fluorides from their proposed resource
recovery facility. BACT is defined in the Clean Air Act as
...an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of
reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under this
Act...on a case-by—case basis, taking into account energy,
environmental and economic impacts and other costs...’ Under
environmental impacts our review of the original BACT determination
included the impacts from both regulated and affected unregulated
pollutants. The control of particulates, CO, and VOC emissions
are not directly subject to the federal PSD BACT review, but
are subject to the nonattainmerit permitting regulations which
are administered by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
NCRRA is proposing to use a dry scrubber with a baghouse
to control emissions of SO 2 , acid gases, and particulate matter
from the proposed resource recovery project. The dry scrubber
consists of a spray dryer and a baghouse. The spray dryer injects
an atomized lime slurry sorbent into the flue gas stream. The
baghouse removes the dried sorbent and flyash (particulate matter)
from the flue gas. The dry scrubber will be designed for a
flue gas flow of 225,000 acfm at an inlet temperature of

-------
—2—
340 degrees F and a maximum outlet temperature of 265 degrees F.
NCRRA expects the dry scrubber system to provide 83% removal of
SO 2 and 95% removal of acid gases as well as 99.5% removal of
part icula tee.
Recent tests of emissions control devices for waste fired
boilers (the latest being the Quebec City Test Program) have
shown that properly designed and operated control devices can
.gnificantly reduce emissions from resource recovery facilities.
In particular, an acid gas scrubbing system operating at optimal
stoichiometric ratios, at low temperature, in tandem with a
baghouse can achieve very high removal efficiencies of particu—
lates, SO 2 , HC1, organics, and heavy metals. The tests indicate
that the NCRRA’s proposed emission control system (lime slurry
spray dryer, baghouse, low temperature flue gas) is the most
efficient for controlling the unregulated pollutants from a
resource recovery facility. While certain technologies may have
the potential for greater removal of regulated pollutants (e.g.
a wet scrubber may yield greater SO 2 removal), available data
suggests that greater control of unregulated pollutants will
not result. Region 9 believes that the NCRRA’s proposed control
technology will have very high collection efficiencies.of
dioxins, furans, and heavy metals, with collection efficiencies
of 95% for RC1, and greater than 90% for mercury. We conclude
that a lime slurry spray dryer with a baghouse provides the
greatest degree of control currently achievable for the relevant
ir toxics concerns and therefore, emission limitations based
on the operation of a lime slurry spray dryer with a baghouse
and continuous emission monitors constitute BACT for the control
of SO 2 , lead, mercury, and fluorides from the NCRRA facility.
In addition to the proposed acid gas BACT, Region 9 also
reviewed the BACT decisions made for controlling Nor emissions
from the NCRRA facility. NCRRA has proposed to control NO
emissions with low excess air and staged combustion. After
reviewing all of the available control technologies, Region 9
believes that the alternate NO control technologies currently
available for resource recovery do not offer any better control
of the affected pollutants (organics such as dioxins and furans)
than do the controls proposed for the NCRRA facility. Our
review included staged combustion, selective non—catalytic
reduction, selective catalytic reduction, wet flue gas de—
nitrification, and the different categories of source separation.
Our review also took into account the effects of the district
permit requirements designed to reduce organic toxic pollutants
(minimum 1800° F furnace temperature and minimum 2 second
residence time in the combustion zone). We conclude that an
emission limitation based on the use of low excess air and
staged combustion and with continuous emission monitors is BACT
ons1dering the effect of unregulated pollutants) at this time
r the control of NO emissions from the NCRRA facility.
As part of our BACT review of the NCRRA PSD permit, Region 9
prepared several charts listing the available SO 2 and NO control
options for the NCRRA facility, ranked in order of control

-------
—3—
effectiveness, wltth the extimated impacts of the controls on
the projects’ other air pollutants. The charts were prepared
using data from existing Region 9 PSD permits, permit applications,
district permits, emission control technology reports from the
California Air Resources Board and the New York City Department
of Sanitation, and from reports on the Quebec City Test Program.
The impacts on other pollutants were estimated using our best
engineering judgement based on the available data. We have
included these charts with this report for your review.
After reviewing the above facts, Region 9 has concluded
that no greater controls for the regulated pollutants can be
applied that would be more effective in reducing the emissions
of unregulated pollutants. Therefore, the BACr proposed by NCRRA
and the BACT decisions made by Region 9 in the April 2, 1985
PSD determination are reaffirmed as BACT for controlling SO 2 ,
NOx, lead, mercury, and fluoride emissions from NCRRA’s
proposed North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center.

-------
—4—
REFERENCES
1. Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities ,
California Air Resources Board, May 24, 1984.
2. Clarke, Marjorie J., Emission Control Technologies for
Resource Recovery , New York City Department of Sanitation,
March 15, 1986.
3. Ray, D.J., Finkelstejm, A., Kljcujs, R., Masentette, L.,
The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program:
An Assessment of A) Two—Stage Incineration B) Pilot
Scale Emission Control, Presented at the 79th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
3une 22—27, 1986, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

-------
r iteyicx - New source Section Project Type: 1113 WD,I )P,36 q
a cr ANALYSIS Poutant: —
(Ranked In I creasing Order of Control Effectiveness) Date: Aug 15, 1 86
Project & gineer: 9th Baker
Qx tro1 Options
% Control
Rnission
Rates
E niesions -
(tons/yr)
Control Effect iveneas on
Other_Pollutants
Heavy
Metals
Dioxin
Furans
HCI
Hg
Lead
lbs/ton
(ppn) U
Spray Dryer, Alkaline
Slurry, Baghouse
80—95
0.26—1.04
19—35)
53—212
E c
Bxc
E xc
Good
Exc
Spray Dryer, Lime Slurry,
Baghouse
75—90
0.52—1.30
(18—44)
106—265
E xc
Exa
Exc
Good
Exc
Spray Dryer, Alkaline
Slurry, E
75-90
0.52-1.30
(18—44)
106—265
good
good
Exc
Fair
Good
Dry Injection, Sodium
Sorbent, Baghouse
70—85
0.78—1.56
126—53)
159—318
Exc
Poor
Exc
Poor
Good
Spray Dryer, Lime Slurry,
ES?
65—85
0.78—1.82
(26—62)
159—371
Good
Good
Exc
Fair
Good
Dry Injection, Lime,
E’aghouse
65—80
1.04—1.82
(35—62)
212—371
Good
Poor
Exc
Poor
Good
Wet Scrubbing, Alkaline
50—90+
0.52—2.61
(18—88)
106—530
Poor
Poor
Exc
Fair
Fair
Dry Injection, SodIum
Sorbent, E9
50—75
1.30—2.61
(44—88)
265—530
Fair
Poor
Exc
Poor
Fair
Dry Injection, Lime, ESP
40—70
1.56—3.13
(53—106)
318—636
fair
Poor
Good
Poor
Fair
(1 Corrected to 12% C D 2 , 24 hour average

-------
- — — 7 e I JU&
FPA Region 9 - New Source Sect Project Typez 1113 1?D, J
BAC ANALYSIS P01 lutant __________________
(Ranked in Decreasing Order of Q ntro1 D .....tiveneas) Date: Aug
Page 2 Project F gineerz b Baker
Qntrol Options
.
% O ntro1
Bn lssion
Rates
E nissions
(tons/yr)
Cbntrol Effectiveness on
Other_Pollut.antB
lbs/ton -
(pçzn) U
Heavy
tfetal a
Dioxin
urans
HC1

Hg
Lead
Dry
Injection, Llme8tone,
25—40
3.13—3.91
636—795
Fair
Poor
Good
poor
Fair
5p
(106—132)
Wet
Scrubbing, Water
20—30
3.65—4.17
(124—141)
742—848
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Source Separation
5—10
4.69—4.95
(159—168)
954—1007
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
(1 Cbrrected to 12% (02, 24 our average.

-------
Project Category. Resource 1 oovecy
fPA Region 9 - New Source Section Project Type; 1113 11)D , RDF, 36 *1
BACF ANALYSIS Pollutant; NO
(Ranked in Decreasing der ot Control Eftectiveness) Date: Aug 15, 1986
Project &igineer; Bob Baker
Control Options
% Control
E niss ion
Rates
lbs/ton
(1
E nissions
(tons/yr)
Control Effectiveness on
Dioxin
VOC
Other_Pollutants
0)
Heavy
Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) (2
90—95
0.31-0.61
(15—30)
65—129
Furans
Unk
Poor
Poor
Metals
t’bne
Wet Flue Gas D rAitrifLca—
tion (L XD ) ‘
80—90
0.61—1.21
(30—60)
129—258
None
None
None
Poor
Selective Non-catalytic
Reduction (SN )
30—60
2.43—4.25
(110—200)
473—860
None
None
None
None
Low Excess Air/Staged
Contustton
30—35
3.94—4. 25
(185—200)
795 -860
(k k
Lhk
1 k
None
Flue Gas Recirculat.ion
10—15
5.16—5.46
(240—260)
1032—1118
Worsen
Worsen
Worsen
None
Source Separation
Manim l
-
-
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
.
.
(1 Corrected to 12% C0 2 , 24 hour average.
(2 This control technology has not yet been applied to refuse coitustion, and has not been considered as a
transferable technology due to as yet unresolved technological problems.

-------
—.. .‘.‘— —
Project Category; Resourc- covery
EPA Region 9 - New Source Project Type; [ 113 TPD, 36 PTb
BACT ANALYSIS Pollutant: NO
(Ranked in Dacreasing ( der ot Control Effectiveness) Date; Aug 15, 1986
Project &kglneer: Bob Baker
Control Options
%
Control
EThission
Rates
Emissions
(tons/yr)
Control Effectiveness on
lbs/ton
(pçxn) (1
Dioxin
Furans
VOC
Other_Pollutants
CX)
Heavy
Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) (2
90—95
0.31—0.61
(15—30)
65-129
Unk
Poor
Poor
Metals
None
Wet Flue Gas D Qitrifica—
tion (FGDn) ‘‘
80-90
0.61—1.21
(30—60)
129—258
None
None
None
Poor
Selective Non—Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR)
30-60
2.43—4.25
(110—200)
473—860
None
None
None
None
Low cess Air/Staged
Coatustion
30—35
3.94—4.25
(185—200)
795—860
kik
Unk
Unk
None
Flue Gas Recirculation
10—15
5. 16—5.46
(240—260)
1032—1118
Worsen
Worsen
Worsen
None
Source Separation
M
inimal
-
-
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
.
(1 Corrected to 12% C0 2 , 24 hour average.
(2 This control technology has not yet been applied to refuse cothustion, and has not been considered as a
transferable technology due to as yet unresolved technological problems.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
N ’1 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
2 S JUN T 57
MEMORAWDUM
SUBJECT: Operational Guidance on Control Technology for New and
Modified Municipal Waste Corn ustors (MWCs)
FROM: Gerald A.
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Tox cs Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
As you know, numerous questions regarding the selection of appropriate
pollution control requirements for M’i4Cs have arisen during recent years
in major source permitting proceedings under the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) provisions of Part C of the Clean Air Act and the
nonattain nent new source review (WSR) provisions of Part D of the Act.
Accordingly, the attached operational guidance is being issued to promote
consistency in making best available control technology (BACT) determinations
under P50 and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) determinations under
nonattainment NSR, and to reduce delay and confusion in the permitting
process. This guidance requires reviewing authorities, in considering the
range of potential control options during the BACT determination process
for MWCs, to consider a dry scrubber and a fabric filter or electrostatic
precipitator as BACT for sulfur dioxide (502) and particulate matter (PM),
and combustion controls as BACT for carbon monoxide (Ca).
The Administrator remanded to Region IX on June 22, 1987, their previous
concurrence on a PSD permit for the H-Power MWC to be constructed in Honolulu,
Hawaii. Petitioners had argued that, (a) BACT for this facility did not
adequately justify the failure to require the use of an acid gas scrubber,
and (b) the permitting authority did not evaluate the effectiveness of acid
gas scrubbers in reducing emissions of unregulated pollutants, as required

-------
2
by the June 1986 North County Resource Recovery Associates PSD Appeal
decision (or North County remand). ifl remanding the H—Power permit appli-
cation to Region IX for further proceedings, the Administrator made it
clear that the Agency considers acid gas scrubbers to be an available
technology for excess air MWCs that fire refuse-derived fuel (RDF) such as
the H-power facility. The attached operational guidance states that this
type of post-combustion control is one component of available technology
for modular, starved air MWCs and massburn, excess air MWCs, in addition to
RDF—fired, excess air MWCs.
As stated above, the operational guidance includes a second component
of available technology, which is combustion control for the criteria
pollutant CO. Since the effectiveness of the two components of available
technology in controlling unregulated pollutants is an important consideration
in individual BACT deteru inations (per the North County remand), the
attached guidance states that (a) acid gas scrubbers followed by fabric
filters or electrostatic precipitators are effective in controlling
potentially toxic organic and metal pollutants, as well as acid gases
other than sulfur dioxide, and (b) combustion controls are effective in
controlling potentially toxic organic pollutants.
The technical basis for the operational guidance is documented in
five reports which are a part of the Agency’s comprehensive study of MWC.
These volumes are listed in the References section of the guidance. You
will note that the guidance indicates “specified values” should be selected
on a site specific basis for several design and operating parameters of
the facility and for emissions of criteria pollutants. A thorough discussion
of the factors to be considered in choosing the “selected values” is
included in the five reports from the comprehensive MWC study.
As noted under Section V, this guidance should be transmitted to all
State and local agencies to which PSD permitting authority has been delegated
.i er 40 CFR Section 52.21(u). The transmittal letter should specify that
the delegation agreement is amended to include this guidance. States which
nave received SiP approval of a PSD program under 40 CER Section 51.166
(formerly Section 51.24) should also be informed of this guidance and of
EPA’s expectation that it be followed.
Attachment
cc: James DeMocker (ANR-443)
Gregory Foote (LE-132A)
Steve Greene (WH-565)
Joseph E. Lees (ANR-443)
J. Craig Potter (ANR-443)
John C. Ulfelder (A-101)
Marcia Williams (WH-562)

-------
6/26/87
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
I. The Weed for Guidance.
The combustion of municipal waste represents an increasingly important
element of the solid waste disposal problem in the U.S. However, the
operation of municipal waste combustors (MWCs) releases potentially harmful
pollutants to the air. Human exposure can occur directly or indirectly,
and there is also concern that the environment could be vulnerable to
long-term accumulation of emitted pollutants. EPA is addressing these
,ssues in a comprehensive, integrated Municipal Waste Combustion Study and
with this operational guidance.
Numerous questions regarding the selection of appropriate pollution
control requirements have arisen during recent years in major source
oermitting proceedings under the prevention of significant deterioration
(P50) provisions of Part C of the Act and the nonattainment new source
review (NSR) provisions of Part D of the Act. Uncertainty over these
questions has led to conflict over minimum legal requirements and consequent
delay in the permitting and construction of MWCs. Hence, there is a need
for guidance to resolve controversies which may arise as to facilities
seeking permits. ccordingly, EP is issuing this operational guidance
for use in making best available control technology (BACT) determinations
under PSD and lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) determinations under
nonattainment NSR. EPA believes that this guidange will promote consistency
in control requirements, and reduce delay and confusion in the permitting

-------
2
process. At the same time it will allow permitting authorities to give
appropriate consideration to local factors in making case—by-case BACT
determinations as required under law.
1. Administrative History.
Section 169(3) of the Act provides that BACT determinations in PSD
permits must be “based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant
subject to regulation under this [ Act] . . . which the permitting authority,
on a case—by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs, determines Is achievable.” EPA’s
regulations track this language. See 40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(12), 40 C.F.R.
51.166(b)(12). In addition, in two administrative appeals involving
resource recovery facilities, EPA has further refined the analysis which
permitting authorities must conduct in making BACT determinations.
In North County Resource Recovery Associates, PSD Appeal No. 85—2
(June 3, 1986), the Administrator issued a Remand Order which held that,
in making BACT determinations for a regulated air pollutant, the permitting
a thority must consider the effect of that decision on emissions of pollutants
not regulated under the Clean Air Act. North County provided that the
final BA.CT decision should address these environmental impacts, and that
the permitting authority may ultimately choose more stringent emissions
limitations for the regulated pollutant than it would otherwise have chosen
if it would have the collateral benefit of restricting emissions of the
unregulated pollutant. In the North County case, the permitting authority
had required the use of a dry scrubber and fabric filter as BACT for sulfur
dioxide, but had failed to consider the effect of that decision on emissions

-------
3
of certain unregulated pollutants -— dioxins and furans, heavy metals, and
acid gases —— on the grounds that it lacked authority to do so. Various
persons petitioned the Administrator under 40 C.F.R. Part 124. in response
to the Administrator’s subsequent remand order, the permitting authority
analyzed the effect of various control options on these three classes of
pollutants, and found that no other controls on regulated pollutants would
be more effective in reducing emissions of the unregulated pollutants. The
Adnil ni strator then rul ed that the peril tti ng authority had satisfied the
requirements of the remand order, and denied the petitions. See North
County Resource Recovery Associates, PSO Appeal No. 85-2, Order Denying
Review (September 4, 1986).
The Administrator ruled in Honolulu Resource Recovery Facility
(“H-Power”), PSD Appeal No. 86-6, Remand Order (June 22, 1987), that a PSD
permitting authority has the burden of demonstrating that adverse economic
impacts justify the failure to require as BAd the most effective control
technology which is available. He also found that acid gas scrubbers are
n available cortrol technology for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). The H—Power
decision also provided that the economic impacts must be specific to the
source in question and substantial. Thus, because the Administrator
agreed with EPA egion IX that Hawaii had not adequately deiionstrated the
basis for its conclusion that economic factors justified the absence of
flue gas treatment as BACT for SO 2 , he remanded the matter for further
proceedings.

-------
4
EPA today also draws upon the technical data referenced below, and
its experience in issuing, reviewing, and enforcing PSD permits for MWCs.
ecent emission test data have demonstrated that particulate matter (PM),
SO 2 , and other air pollutants (including organics, heavy metals, and acid
gases) can be controlled effectively by acid gas scrubbing devices (dry
scrubbers) equipped with efficient particulate collectors. Over 20 MWC
facilities in Europe are known to be operating with dry scrubbers and
particulate collectors, and at least 37 such facilities are known to exist
in Japan. In the United States, three facilities currrently are in operation
and at least 15 have been permitted to construct with dry scrubbing and
particulate control devices as the specified technology. Thirteen of these
facilities are expected to be operating by December 1988.
Based on this information, it is clear that a dry scrubber followed
by either a fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator are “available”
technologies for effective control of the SO 2 and PM emitted by MWCs, and
that these technologies also are effective in controlling emissions of
cotentially toxic organic arid heavy metal pollutants, and acid gases
other than SO 2 . In addition, the data show that these technologies are
reliable and reasonably affordable. Similarly, combustion controls are
an available technology for the control of carbon monoxide (CD) emitted
by M Cs, and are effective in controlling that criteria pollutant and
potentially toxic organic pollutants. EPA’s information indicates that
this technology also is reliable and reasonably affordable.

-------
S
III. BACT Guidance for SO 2 , PM, and Co.
Accordingly, in considering the range of potential control options
during the BACT determination process for MWCs, the reviewing authority
must consider a dry scrubber and a fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator
as BACT for SO 2 and PM, and combustion controls as BACT for CO. In order
to justify a BACT determination calling for a lesser degree of emissions
control than can be achieved using these technologies, the permitting
authority must demonstrate, based on information contained in the permit
file, that significant technical defects, or substantial adverse economic,
energy, or environmental impacts or other costs would arise that are
specific to the MWC in question. Permitting authorities remain free to
make case-by-case judgments in accordance with today’s guidance. However,
based on the above-referenced information regarding legal requirements
and the availability, effectiveness, and cost of these technologies, EPA
expects that proper application of this guidance will result in few, if
any, BACT determinations entailing application of pollution control
technologies less effective than those called for herein.
Today’s guidance is general; it is iimitea to describing types of
post-combustion control equipment and to establishing general criteria
for combustor design, combustor operating practices, emission monitoring,
and operator training. It does not set specific emission limits. Detailed
information regarding the maximum degree of emissions control achievable
with these technologies is available in the referenced technical documents,
the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, or from EPA. Such information should be
used by applicants and permitting authorities setting specific emissions

-------
6
limits for PSD permits. In addition, today’s guidance only addresses
cofltrol technologies currently in widespread use for MWCs, and estabi ishes
mnir’um criteria for BACT determinations. Permitting authorities are not
relieved of their responsibility to consider, on a case—by—case basis,
hatever available technologies may be anticipated to provide a greater
degree of control than those addressed today. Similarly, because control
technologies and the other factors in forming BACT determinations are
constantly evolving, the technology providing the greatest degree of
emissions control taking economic, energy, and environmental impacts into
account may likewise change over time. As one example, flue gas treatment
technology for the criteria pollutant nitrogen oxides (NOx) is in operation
at one MWC in the U.S., and this technology should be considered by permitting
authorities in making BACT determinations. In addition, emerging technologies
in flue gas cleaning may develop which can attain the level of multipollutant
control currently demonstrated by dry scrubbing/particulate matter controls,
and technologies such a these should be considered in future BACT determinations.
er- iitt1ng authorities and applicants must keep abreast of new developments.
f course, EPA will assist in this endeavor.
V. LAER Guidance for Nonattainment Areas.
The technologies discussed herein for control of SO 2 PM, GO, and WO
have all been successfully implemented, and thus have been “achieved in
practice” by MWCs within the meaning of section 171(3) of the Act.
Hence, in nonattainment areas where NSR requirements apply and major new
sources and modifications must apply LAER, no less effective pollution
control technologies may be imposed as LAER.

-------
7
V. Implementation.
Today’s guidance applies to all ongoing PSD and NSR proceedings, as
well as to all new permit applications. In consideration of the needs
for program stability and equity to sources which have in good faith
relied on pre-existing permitting guidelines, this guidance does not
apply to PSD and WSR permit proceedings for which, as of June 26, 1987,
final permits have already been issued and, with respect to PSD permits
issued by EPA, agency review procedures under 40 C.F.R. Part 124 have been
exhausted.
This operational guidance applies to PSD permits issued by EPA directly
through its Regional offices and indirectly through State and local
agencies pursuant to delegation agreements made under 40 C.F.R. 52.21(u).
Such agencies will be notified by letter of this guidance. It will
constitute an amendment to the pre-e isting delegation agreements. EPA
Regional offices will review all draft permits for MWCs issued by delegate
agencies during the public comment period to insure proper application.
F rtner program evaluation will take place under the National Air Audit
System (WAAS). If delegate agencies should fail to adhere to this guidance,
EPA staff may initiate administrative appeal proceedings under 40 C.F.R.
part 124 in appropriate cases. Such action would be appropriate where, for
example, failure to follow the guidance results in a finding of fact or
conclusion of law which is clearly erroneous, or involves an exercise of
discretion or an important policy consideration which the Administrator
should review. See 40 C.F.R. 124.19(a). Action would also be appropriate
where failure to follow the guidance resulted in an inability to determine,

-------
8
based on the record, whether a clear error occurred. If necessary, EPA
ay also revoke the delegation of P50 authority to the State or local
agency.
With respect to State PSD permits issued pursuant to a State implementation
plan (SIP) program approved by EPA under 40 C.F.R. 51.166 (formerly 51.24),
and State NSR programs approved under Part 0 of the Act and 40 C.F.R.
51.165 (formerly 51.18(j)), EPA expects States to follow today’s guidance
in generally the same fashion as delegate agencies. EPA will use the
guidance as a reference point in its oversight of State MWC permit actions.
As with delegated permits EPA will participate in permit proceedings and
conduct NAAS evaluations. If agencies processing NSR permits or PSD
permits under approved State programs should fail to adhere to this
guidance, EPA may initiate administrative and/or judicial action under
sections 113 and/or 167 of the Act in appropriate cases. Such action
would be appropriate where, for example, failure to follow the guidance
results in a finding of fact or conclusion of law which is clearly erroneous,
or ii an inability to determine whether a clear error occurred. If
necessary, EPA may also call for SIP revisions under section ll0(a)(2)(H).
insofar as today’s guidance addresses minimum legal requirements for
3ACT determinations, it simply implements existing regulations and policy,
including Agency actions already made by the Administrator in the North
County and H-Power cases. To the extent the guidance addresses the technical
issues of availability, effectiveness, and cost of control technologies for
HWCs, it expresses EPA’s view regarding the proper usage, in permit proceedings
under existing EPA regulations and SIP programs, of the factual data contained

-------
9
in the five documents referenced below. Those documents present information
n the alternative controls available for MW s, the performance capabilities
and costs of those controls, and the methods for monitoring and measuring
emissions from M 4Cs. Factors to be considered in choosing the “specified
values” to be included in permits, as noted in the guidance, such as maximum
concentration of CO in emissions and minimum value of furnace temperature,
are contained in these references. Thus, the guidance does not constitute
rulemaking within the meaning of section 307(d) of the Act or under the
Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, it is not necessary to implement
this guidance, as to EPA permits issued by Regional offices or State and
local agencies, through changes in the PSO regulations at 40 C.F.R. 52.21.
Likewise, regarding approved State PSD programs, it is not necessary to
revise 40 C.F.R. 51.166 and require corresponding SIP revisions.
I. Technical Guidance.
Today’s operational guidance applies to three types of MWCs:
massburn, excess air MWCs; excess air MWCs that fire refuse-derived fuel;
aid modular, starved air MWCs. It applies to those MWCs that operate witr%
energy recove’-y and those that operate without energy recovery. It applies
to both iajor new and major modified facilities of these types. The guidance
requires that values for emission limits and operating parameters be specified
in MWC permitting decisions.
One component of control technology for MWCs is the application of the
appropriate post—combustion control equipment. The EPA has identified
this equipment as a dry scrubber with fabric filter or with electrostatic

-------
10
precipitator. The concentration of particulate emissions in the exhaust
gases from the post-combustion control equipment shall not exceed a
specified maximum value; and the SO 2 emissions in the exhaust gases
shall not exceed a specified maximum concentration value or the percent
reduction in $02 emissions across the post—combustion control equipment
snall not be less than a specified value. Performance of the dry scrubber
and fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator in controlling acid
gases, potentially toxic metals, and potentially toxic organic pollutants
is affected sigificantly by the reduction in flue gas temperature which
occurs in the dry scrubber. The control system shall be designed and
coerated such that the flue gas temperature at the outlet from the dry
scrubber does not exceed a specified value.
A second component of control technology for MWCs is proper design
and operation of the combustion system, which controls CO and potentially
toxic organic pollutants. Minimum concentrations of CO in emissions from
M’ Cs are associated with the implementation of several good combustion
practices. These practtces are also related to the effective destruction
f potential emissions of toxic organic pollutants, including dioxins and
furans. Concentrations of CO in furnace exhaust gases shall not exceed a
specified maximum value, and CO and 02 concentrations in the exhaust gases
shall be monitored continuously. In addition, furnace operating temperatures
shall be no lower than a specified minimum value, and a procedure for continuous
monitoring shall be established to ensure that the specified temperature is
maintained.

-------
11
The capabilities to control flow rates and distributions of underfire
(primary) and overfire (secondary) air, to monitor continuously CO
concentration and furnace temperature, to maintain thermal load within a
specified range, and to control the process to maintain CO and temperature
of the furnace at appropriate levels are all important to good combustion.
Detailed information regarding the numerical values to be assigned to the
emission levels and equipment design and operating parameters associated
with good combustion are provided in the documents cited under References.
P eferences :
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Emission Data Base for Municipal
Waste Combustors.
EPA/530—SW-8?-021B
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Combustion Control of Organic Emissions.
E A/S3O-SW-87-O21C
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Flue Gas Cleaning Technology.
EPA/S 30-SW-87-0210
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Cost of Flue Gas Cleaning Technologies.
EPA/530-SW-87-021E
MuniciDal Waste Combustion Study: Sampling and Analysis.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MEM OR A NOUM
SUBJECT: Huntsville Incinerator — Determining Best vai1able Control
Technology (BAd)
FROM: Gary McCutchen, Chief :
New Source Review Section, CPDD (MD-iS) c ;i -A
TO: Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
This is in response to your March 30, 1987, memorandum regarding
the BACT determination made by the Alabama Department of Environmental
lanagement (ADEM) for the proposed Huntsville incinerator facility.
It is difficult to provide a detailed response to the significant and
complex questions and issues you have raised within the relatively short
turn-around time that you have specified. However, our initial review of
the information submitted indicates that the Region’s position (i.e., the
use of acid gas scrubbing as BACT for municipal waste incinerators) is
consistent with emerging national policy and current BACT analysis for
similar facilities.
We have reviewed the arguments presented by the applicant and
ADEM. Although certain of the criteria used in the 8ACT decision are
acceptable, many of the reasons given for not requiring acid gas controls
are unacceptable-—even within the context of a case-by—case analysis.
Specifically:
1) The fact that the new source performance standard (NSPS) for this
source category (40 CFR 60, Subpart Db, June 19, 1936) does not require
sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) scrubbing should not influence the BACT analysis.
In a BACT analysis, an NSPS simply defines a minimal level of control. The
tact that a technology was not selected for the NSPS (or that a pollutant
is not regulated by the NSPS) is in no way indicative of the qualifications
of a technology as a BACT candidate. The only reason for comparing
control options to an NSPS is to determine ,hether the control option
would result in an emissions level less stringent than the SPS. If so,
that option s unacceptable.

-------
2
2) It is not correct to tactor into trie BACT analysis the contention
that tne proposed facility would be less polluting than any coal-fired
boiler Redstone Arsenal would contemplate building if steam were not
available from the proposed facility. Any emitting facility constructed
by Redstone Arsenal would be a separate source and would be required to
comply with all applicable environmental regulations. If the Redstone
Arsenal were to constuct a coal—fired facility or its own incinerator, it
would also have to apply BACT. In fact, BACT for a coal—fired boiler
might result in lower emissions than would a steam-producing incinerator.
3) In regard to ADEM’s argument that the Huntsville plant would
produce steam which is a less valuable commodity than the electricity
produced at other similar plants, it is difficult to determine the va1idity
of the argument without a aetai lea economic assessment. Even though
electricity may be a more valuable product than steam (for some municipal
waste incinerators), steam is cheaper to produce both from the point of
capital and annualized costs. Depending on the purchase price of the
steam, it may even be a more profitable alternative for those facilities
where a buyer for the steam is on hand.
The ADEM has indicated that since the steam purchase agreements are
already signed it is not possible for the applicant to consider raising
the purchase price or the steam to detray the increased tipping cost that
the applicant contends would result from the cost of S02 controls. In
most cases, this type of argument should be ignored. A reviewing agency
is no more bound by an applicant’s unfounded assumption regarding what
level of control will constitute BACT than a bank is bound by an assumption
of a certain interest rate on the applicant’s loan or a supplier by an
assumption on the applicant’s part regarding the costs of materials or
equipment. This is one case where it it acceptable tor a BACT determination
to make it uneconomical for a source to construct.
The EPA has no choice other than to ignore such arguments. If
financial agreements like this were taken into account, applicants could
simply sign contracts based on meeting the NSPS or even using no control
whatsoever, then use those contracts to justify the level of control
that they preselected.
In further response to the specific questions raised in your memo:
1) The document titled Guidelines for Determining Best Available
Control Technology (BAd),” dated December 1978, was issued for the
purpose of providing the framework for a consistent approach in determining
BAd. The document, however, is general in its attempt at defining the
BACT process, and at best focuses on specifying the parameters which
should be considered in the BACT analysis.
In October 1980, EPA published the “Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Workshop Manual.” This document, in the hopes of bringing
greater consistency to the BACT review process, presented an analytical
format for the BACT analysis. Although the document recognizes the need

-------
3
— for evaluating BACT on a case-by—case basis, it does provide more specific
guidance than the 1978 document in defining how economic, energy, and
environmental factors are to be evaluated. If applied correctly, the
methodology desoribed in the workbook should result in a BACT determination
consistent with the definition of BACT and acceptable to EPA.
Probably the best method of determining BAd, an approach that
assesses BACT starting from the most effective control option available,
is being successfully implemented by some State and local agencies. This
approach, in conjunction with the PSD workshop manual, can be used to
evaluate the State’s proposed BACT decision. For further information on
the implementation of this approach, contact Wayne A. Blackard, Chief,
New Source Section, EPA Region IX (FTS 454-8249).
2) As you have pointed out, States are to decide how their
environmental resources (such as increments) are used. A State may, for
example, decide that a proposed source would consume too much increment
and therefore prevent that source from being built or allow it to De
built only if increment consumption is further reduced.
The BACT determination, however, is made totally independent ot t e
amount of increment or air resources available. The environmental impact
aspect of BACT is designed to ensure that a more costly control system
will result in a decreased environmental impact (e.g., fewer emissions,
smaller impact area, lower maximum ground level concentration, etc.).
This environmental assessment should not be confused with the concept of
using up the increment by “relaxing” BAd, a concept that EPA does not
accept.
Once determined, BACT can only be made more stringent (not less) by
environme tal considerations. Examples include cases where BACT is not
stringent enough to prevent exceedances of a national ambient air quality
standard (or an increment) or where the State will not accept the level
of control selected as BACT and demands more stringent controls to preserve
increment. In both cases, the source has a choice of locating elsewhere
or reducing either its emissions or its impact. Efforts to reduce emissions
bring about the “technology—forcing” aspect of BACT and lowest achievable
emission rate that Congress envisioned as part of a system designed to
hold new emissions to an absolute minimum. If it works, the ‘forced”
technology will likely become the new BACT level of control.
Possible grounds for overturning a BACT decision include an
inappropriate review (e.g., BACT procedures not correctly followed, BACT
decision not correctly justified), an incomplete review, a review based
on false or misleading information, or a permit which is not enforceable
as a practical matter. This is not a complete list; these are just some
of the most common problems.
3) The PSD Workshop Manual also addresses tnis point by recognizing
that “additional financing required for an alternative control strategy
may jeopardize the financing of the entire project.” However, the
workshop manual also points out that “information is available on the

-------
4
value of various emissions reductions that EPA and affected industries
generally agree are reasonable.” Since an applicant can bias the economics
of a proposed project towards a less stringent control option, it is best
in nearly all cases to evaluate the costs of controls against established
rorms. Many State and local agencies currently evaluate BACT proposals
against dollars per ton criteria or against acceptable control costs for
the category of source in question. This helps to ensure that the applicant
does not bias the economics of the project against an otherwise acceptable
control option. These types of approaches help to bring nationwide
consistency to the BACT determinations while still allowing for a case—by—case
determi nation.
The burden of proof always rests on the applicant to demonstrate why
a generally accepted and established control option is unacceptable for
the proposed project. The demonstration deserves special scrutiny when
the applicant claims that an established control option would prevent the
source from being constructed. It should be noted that the reason for
applying economics to the source category overall and then requiring
extensive justification for less stringent control for an individual
facility is that EPA cannot be placed in the position of allowing less
stringent (or no) controls simply because an applicant cannot atford what
similar sources are required to use.
Economic considerations will vary from project to project, but
within the same general source category, construction and operation costs
should not vary to the extent that the requirement to apply an established
control option can stop a project. This type of argument generally is
riot acceptable. In most cases, a source simply should not be granted a
permit if financing is inadequate for proper controls.
The caveat in existing BACT guidance about stopping a project is
intended to prevent BACT determinations by a reviewing agency that are so
much more expensive than the norm that a typical source could not reasonably
be built. Examples might include requirements for a series of two or
more baghouses or a control system whose cost greatly exceeds that of the
base facility.
4) The Region’s nonacceptance of the “alternative build scenario” appears
appropriate in this case.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to
contact me at FTS 629-5592, or have your staff contact David Solomon at
FTS 629-5375.
cc: NSR contacts

-------
S74 ,
w UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4 pp,r 1
APR - 8 1987
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of New Source Review Policy on
Averaging Times for Production Limitations
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Sou rce Compli e iv’Thi n
Office of Air Quality P1 nning and Stan ards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
On March 13, 1986 the Stationary Source Compliance Division
issued the attached memorandum which describes EPA’s policy
on maximum allowable averaging times for production and
operational limitations. The limitations addressed are those
which restrict a source’s potential to emit to below PSD/NSR
major source or major modification thresholds. Since the
issuance of this memorandum last March, there have been
several attempts to misuse the policy and apply it to emission
limitations, rather than to production/operational limitations.
The purpose of this memorandum is to distinguish between
EPA’S policy on averaging times for production limitations
versus emission limitations, and to clarify the proper
implementation of the March 13, 1986 nemorandum.
Production limitations place restrictions on a source’s
operating rate, or rate of material throughput. Examples of
production limitations are: hours of operation, gallons of
coating per job or per unit time, million BTU per unit time,

-------
—2—
material processed per unit time. Federally enforceable
limitations on these parameters may serve to limit a source’s
potential to emit to below major sourc e thresholds. EPA’s
policy on the longest averaging times that are considered
Federally enforceable is set forth in the March 13, 1986
memorandum from Edward E. Reich. The longest averaging time
generally acceptable for the purposes of practical Federal
enforcement is one month, however, a source may seek approval
of longer rolling averages as discussed in that memorandum.
Emission limitations place restrictions directly on the
source’s pollutant emission rate. Examples of emission
limitations are: lb VOC/gal coating, lb VOC/hour, lb S02/MBTU,
lb S0 2 /hour, grains particulates/dscf. In order for emission
limitations to he Federally enforceable from the practical
stand point, they must be short term and specific so as to
enable the Agency to determine compliance at any time.
Emission limitations on a yearly basis alone (e.g., tons per
year, or rolling yearly averages) do not satisfy EPA’s
requirements with respect to Federal enforceability. EPA’S
policy on averaging times for VOC emission limitations is stated
in the January 20, 1984 memorandum from John O’Connor,
Acting Director of OAQPS.
The March 13, 1986 Edward Reich memorandum describes
EPA’S policy on averaging times for production limitations
which limit potential to emit to below major source or major
modification thresholds. That memorandum states that the
averaging time policy for production limitations does not
apply to emission limitations. Therefore, limitations on a
source’s emission rate (e.g., lb VOC/unit time) designed to
keep the source’s potential emissiQns below NSR/PSD thresholds
must comport with EPA policy on emission limitations. Sources
may not use the March 13, 1986 memorandum on averaging times
for production limitations to justify the use of longer (e.g.,
yearly or monthly) averaging times for emission limitations.
Any questions regarding this memorandum or the March 13, 1986
memorandum may be directed to Sally M. Farrell at FTS 382—2875.
Attachment

-------
—3—
cc: Gary McCutchen, CPDD
David Soloman, CPDD
Marcia Spink, Region I
John Courcier, Region I
Kenneth Eng, Region II
Karl Mangels, Region II
Estena McGhee, Region III
Wayne Aronson, Region IV
Roger Pfaff, Region I v
Ron Van Mersbergen, Region V
Rizalino Castenares, Region V
John Behnam, Region VI
Stanley Spriuell, Region VI
Charlie Whitinore, Region VII
John Dale, Region VIII
Steve Frey, Region VIII
Wayne A. Blackard, Region IX
David Bray, Region X
Gregory Foote, 0CC
Judy Katz, OECM

-------
Ill
s 4
!TED ST \TES EN\ IRO\\IENT.AL PROTECTIO\ AGENCY
I \ IIL\GTO\,DC 20460
‘4(
February 27, 1981
OFFICE OF
AIR APiD RADIAT1OI .
MEMORAHDUM
SUBJECT: Plantwide Definition of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation / /
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division
Recions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Reoions VII, VIII, and X
As you know, in October 1981 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) revised the new source review (NSR) regulations in 40 CFR Part 51
to allow adoption and use of the “plantwide” definition of source” in
nonattairment areas (46 Fed. Reg. 50766). Since then, the Supreme Court
has upheld that action in Chevron, USA, Inc. v. NRDC, Inc. , 104 S.Ct. 2778
(1984), and many States have submitted State implementation plan (SIP)
revisions that would adopt the plantwide definition for nonattajnment
purposes, either by substituting that definition for a definition that
already exists in the SIP as part of apreviously approved NSR program or
by including it as part of the nonattaininent NSR program still missing
from the SIP. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance on
the preparation of Federal Register notices proposing action on those
pending submissions and to ask that you process those submissions as
quickly as possible.
In its 1981 action, EPA ruled that a State wishing to adopt a plantwjde
definition has discretion to do so. However, the EPA also stated that
use of the plantwide definition could not interfere with reasonable
further progress (RFP) and timely attainment of the relevant national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Thus, EPA further ruled that, if
a State had relied on emission reductions that it projected would result
from the operation of a dual M definition (or a definition similar to the
dual definition) in obtaining EPA approval of its Part D plan, then the
State would have to revise its attainment strategy and demonstration as
necessary to accommodate reduced permitting under the plaritwide definition.

-------
2
The EPA did not restrict a State’s ability to adopt a plantwidé defjnitjon
in any other respect. It did not, however, on the premise that the Clean
Air Act (Act) would operate independently to generate Part D plans that
woifld assure RFP and timely attainment (see 46 FR 50767 col. 2, 50769
cal. 1).
Category A: Adecuate StP, No Prior Reliance on Dual Definition
In view of the above, a proposal to approve is appropriate for those
pending submissions where the State: (1) has a fully approved Part D SIP,
(2) is not subject to a call by EPA for a SIP revision, and (3) did not
rely or a dual or similar definition in its attainment demonstration.
Where EPA has previously approved a Part D plan on the basis of an attain-
ment demonstration, you should determine whether there was reliance on a
dual or similar definition, either by examining the demonstration yourself
or by asking the State to certify that there was no such reliance and then
reviewing that certification.
Category B: Adequate SIP, Prior Reliance on Dual Definition
A proposal to approve would also be appropriate for any submission
where the State: (1) has a fully approved Part D SIP, (2) is not subject
to a call by EPA for a SIP revision, and (3) did rely on the operation of
a dual or similar definition but now has adjusted its strategy or demon-
stration or both to con ensate or otherwise account for the effects, if
any, of the switch to the plantwide definition. This could be done in
one of several ways, as follows:
1. Altered Circumstances/Revised Views . The State could make
a showing that any emission reductions previously projected to be obtained
from the NSR program are no longer needed as part of the attainment
strategy in the current SIP (e.g., because fewer reductions are needed
than originally forecast, or because additional reductions will be forth—
coining elsewhere). Similarly, the State could revise its oriainal views
as to the emission reductions that would be obtained from NSR using the
existing definition (e.g., upon reassessment, the State might conclude
that the plantwide definition would be at least as effective in producing
reductions).
2. Progressive Netting . The State could require that all
emission reduction credits used for plantwide netting be discounted at
(or beyond) the offset ratio specified in the applicable SIP. Such a
measure would assure that any emission reductions previously expected as
a result of applying NSR would be achieved through plantwide netting.
3. Compensating Changes Within the NSR Program . Alternatively,
the State could submit other changes to the NSR program (e.g., increasing
the offset ratio for the reduced number of anticipated NSR permits) such
that the total emission reductions attributable to the NSR program would
remain constant.

-------
3
4. Compensating Chanoes Elsewhere in the SIP . Finally, the
State could also compensate (in whole or in part) for any fall-off in
emission reductions previously expected from NSR, if any, by making compen-
sating changes elsewhere in the SIP (e.g., by adopting additional control
measures for existing sources). -
Catecory C: Inadequate SIP
A proposal to approve would be appropriate for a submission where
the State does not have a fully approved Part D plan or is subject to a
call for a SIP revision only if the State has shown it is making, and
will continue to make, reasonable efforts to adopt and submit a complete
plan for RFP and timely attainment. Specifically, the State must submit
written assurances that it is making reasonable efforts to develop a
complete approvable SIP and intends to adhere to the schedule for such
development (including dates for the completion of an emissions inventory
and subsequent increments of progress) stated in the submission or
previously forwarded to EPA. The State assurances will become part of
the SIP; however, they need not be verified by, e.g., detailed quantifica-.
tions, or showings that all reductions needed for areawide progress or
attainment have been identified and targeted for regulation. They are,
however, expected to be based upon a meaningful review by the State.
Likewise, EPA will not second-guess the assurances, provided that they
constitute a substantial assessment and, as a whole, explain how use of
the plantwide definition is consistent with the State’s SIP development
strategy.
One of the pillars of the l9 1 action was EPA’s confidence that the
Act would independently generate adequate attainment plans. However, many
nonextension areas with previously approved plans are still experiencing
v olat1ons of the relevant NAAQS, and many extension areas are still
without approved attainment plans, The purpose of the requirement for
specific assurances from the State is to reouild for the specific case
that level of confidence that supported EPA’s general willingness in 1981
to approve the use of the plaritwide definition.
Incidentally, if the State previously relied on the operation of a
dual or similar definition in obtaining approval of its Part D plan, it
would also have to adjust its strategy or demonstration or both to cornpen—
sate or otherwise account for the effects, if any, of the switch to the
plantwide defl 1t1on, even though EPA has called for a SIP revision.
A praposaT to disapprove would be appropriate for all other cases,
in particular where the State has yet to obtain approval of a Part D plan
and has failed to show that it is making reasonable efforts to develop
the SIP revisions necessary at this point.
We have prepared I bo1lerplateu language for each of these cases. A
copy is attached. You should tailor it to fit the circumstances of each
particular SIP submission.

-------
4
If you have any questions, please contact Gary McCutchen (FTS—629-55g1).
Attachment
cc: Mike Alushin, LE-134A
Don Clay, ANR—443
Alan Eckert, LE-132A
Greg Foote, LE-l32A
Joe Lees, ANR-443
Mike Levin, PM-223
Paul Stolpman, AHR-. 43
John Tnillmann, ANR-443
Bob Wayland, A—101
Peter Wyckoff, LE-132A

-------
ATTACHMENT
INSERT FOR FEDERAL REGISTER PROPOSALS
TO APPROVE PLANTWIDE DEFINITION
On October 14, 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
revised the new source review (NSR) regu ations in 40 CFR Part 51 to give
States the option of adopting the “plantwide” definition of stationary
source in nonattainment areas (see 46 FR 50766). This definition provides
that Ofli physical or operational changes that result in a net increase
in emissions at the entire plant require a NSR permit. For example, if a
plant increased emissions at one piece of process equipment but reduced
emissions by the same amount at another piece of process equipment at the
plant. then there would be no net increase in emissions at the plant and
therefore no “niDdification” to the “source.” The plantwide definition is
n contrast to the so-called “dual” definition [ or a definitional structure
like that in the 1979 offset ruling (44 FR 3274). which has much the same
effect as the dual definition]; under the dual definition, the emissions
from each physical or operational change are gauged without regard to
reductions elsewhere at the plant.
In the October 1981 Federal Register notice, EPA set forth its
rationale for allowing use of the plantwide definition (46 FR 50766—69).
In its view, allowing use of the plantwide definition was a reasonable
accommodation of the conflicting goals of Part 0 of the Clean Air Act
(Act); on the one hand, reasonable further progress (RFP) and timely
attainment of nati onal ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and on the
other, maximum State flex1b hty and economic growth. The EPA recognized
that use of the plantwide efinit’on would brinc fewer plant niodifications

-------
2
into the nonattainrnent permitting process, but emphasized that this
generally would not interfere with RFP and time 1 y attainment primarily
because the States under the demands of Part D eventually would have
adequate State implementation plans (SIP’s) in place. For instance, EPA
stated:
Since demonstration of attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS continues to be required, deletion of
the dual definition increases State flexibility
without interfering with timely attainment of the
ambient standards and so is consistent with Part 0
[ 46 Fed. Reg. 50767 col. 2).
The EPA added that in any event the use of a dual definition, by
bringing more plant modifications through the NSR process or subjecting
them to the construction ban (40 CFR 52.24), may discourage replacement
of older, dirtier processes and hence retard not only economic growth,
but also progress toward clean air. The EPA also pointed out that under
the plantwide definition new equipment would still be subjected to any
applicable new source performance standard and that wholly new plants, as
well as any modifications that resulted in a significant net emissions
increase, would still be subject to NSR. Thus, EPA saw no significant
disadvantage in the plantwide definition from the environmental standpoint,
as against the advantages from the standpoints of state flexibility and
economic growth. It regarded the plantwide definition as presenting, at
the very worst, environmental risks that were manageable because of the
independent impetus to create adequate Part 0 plans, and at best the
potential for air quality improvements driven by the marketplace.
As a result, EPA ruled that a State wishing to adopt a plantwide
definition generally has complete discretion to do so, and it set only
one restriction on that discretion. If a State had specifically projected

-------
3
emission reductions from its NSR program as a result of a dual or similar
definition and had relied on those reductions in an attainment strategy
that EPA later approved, then the State needed to revise its attainment
strategy as necessary to accommodate reduced NSR permitting under the
plantwide definition (46 FR 50767 col. 2, 50769 c cl. 1).
In 1984, the Supreme Court upheld EPA’s action as a reasonable
accommodation of the conflicting purposes of Part 0 of the Act, and hence
well within EPA’s broad discretion. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc. ,
10 S.Ct. 2778. Specifically, the Court agreed that the plantwide defini-
tion is fully consistent with the Act’s goal of maximizing State flexibility
and allowing reasonable economic growth. Likewise, the Court recognized
that EPA had advanced a reasonable explanation for its conclusion that
trie plarit .,ide cefinition serves the Act’s environmental objectives as
well (see 10 S.Ct. at 2792). The EPA today generally reaffirms the
rationales stated in the 1981 rulemaking. Those rationales were left
undisturbed by the Supreme Court decision. Further, EPA has not received
any emp rical information since the 1981 rulemaking that would require a
departure from the basic reasoning in support of the plantwide definition.
[ Insert for States in “Category A” with an approved NSR program and an
approved attainment plan that does not rely on the F SR program to
demonstrate attainment.]
On _______________, the State of ____________ submitted a SIP revision
that would substitute a plantwide definition of source for the existing
dual definition in the State’s nonattainment NSR program. The EPA previously
approved the Part D SIP for the relevant nonattainment areas on the basis
a” atta’”e t der cr.stration. The State has certified that it did not

-------
4
rely on any rec .iction from tne operation of the existing NSR program in
that demonstratIon, an EPA’s examination of tne demonstration confjrm3
that it did not. Therefore. EPA here proposes to approve the switch to a
plantwide defnntion Inasmuch as it satisfies the only restriction EPA
placed on such changes.
[ Insert for States in “Category B” with an approved NSR program and
an approved attaInment plan that relies on the NSR program to demonstrate
attainment.]
On ____________, the State of — — submitted a SIP revision
that would substitute a plantwide definition of source for the existing
dual definition in the State s nonattainment NSR program. The EPA
previously approved the Part D SIP for the relevant nonattainmerit areas
on the basis of an attainment demonstration, end the State relied in that
demonstration or emiss’on reductions it projected would result from the
operation of tne NSR program. The State, however, has adjusted its
attainment strategy and demonstration to account for the loss of any
reductions àttr IDutable to the operation of tne dual definition as follows:
[ insert content of State showing]. Therefore, EPA here proposes to
approve the switch to a plantwide definition in accordance with its 1981
action ine much as the State has modified its attainment plan to assure
REP and attainment of the NAAQS on the original schedule approved in the
plan.
[ Insert for all States in “Category C” that lack an approved
attainment plan or are subject to a SIP call.]
There has been, ho , ever , a material change in circumstances from
those surrounding the 1981 rulemaking. In 1981. EPA assumed that

-------
5
nonattainr en: areas aireaoy had or shortly would have Part D SIP’s in
place that would bring about REP and attainment by the applicable statutory
deaoline. H , however, many rionattainment areas that were to be free of
NkAQS viol tioris by the end of 1982 are still experiencing them and have
yet to respond adequately to EPA’s calls for SIP revisions. See generally
EPA’s policy on Compliance with the Statutory Provisions of Part 0 of the
Act, 48 FR 50586 (November 2, 1983). Similarly, many areas that were to
be free of v oiations by the end of 1987 still do not have fully approved
Part D plans and, at this point, could not be free of the violations by
then without the imposition of draconian measures (see, e.g., 51 FR 34428.
34431-35 (September 26, 1986)).
In light of this history of SIP development and implementation, EPA
will now approve adoption of the plantwide definition into SIP’s for
nonattainment areas that still lack adequate plans only if the State has
shown that it is making, and will continue to make, reasonable efforts to
adopt and su5 t a complete plan for REP arid timely attainment. Specifi-
cally, the State must submit written assurances that it is making reasonable
efforts to develop a complete approvable SIP and intends to adhere to the
schedule for such development (including dates for the completion of an
emissions inventory and subsequent increments of progress) stated in tne
submission or previously forwarded to EPA. In adopting and defending the
plantwide definition, EPA relied in large measure on its confidence that
the Act would operate independently to generate adequate attainment
plans, so as to make manageable whatever risks were posed by the use of
the plantwide definition. The assurances described above are necessary
to restrengthen EPA’s confidence with respect to this specific State plan.

-------
6
[ Further insert for those “Category C” States with an approved NSR
prooram and an attainment plan that does not rely on NSR to demonstrate
attainment but is subject to a SIP call.]
On __________, the State of ___________ submitted a SIP rev s,on
that would substitute a plantwide definition for a dual definition in its
existing NSR program. Several of the nonattainnient areas to which this
program applies have Part D plans previously approved by EPA, but neverthe-
less are still experiencing violations of the relevant NAAQS, and therefore
are currently subject to calls for SIP revisions by EPA. The State has
shown that in obtaining E A approval of its original Part D SIP it did
not rely on any emission reductions from the operation of its existing
NSR program. The State has also submitted assurances that it is making,
and will continue to make, reasonable efforts to adopt and submit the
necessary additional SIP revisions. [ Describe the assurances.] Therefore,
EPA nere proposes to approve the switch to a plantwide definition, in
accordance with its 1981 action.
[ Further insert for those “Category C” States which have an approved
NSR program, but do not have an approved attainment plan.]
On _____________. the State of __________ submitted a SIP revision that
would substitute a plantwide definition for a dual definition in its
existing HSR program. The State has yet to submit a full Part D plan and
attainment demonstration for the relevant nonattainment areas, and hence
did not rely on any reductions from the operation of the existing NSR
program in any attainment demonstration. Therefore, EPA here proposes to
approve the switch to a plantwide definition in accordance with its 1981
action, inasmuch as the State has shown that it is making, and will

-------
7
continue to make, reasonable efforts to adopt and submit the necessary
additional SIP revisions. [ Describe the assurances.]
[ Further insert for those “Category CU States which do not have an
approved NSR program, anc do not have an approved attainment plan .J
On —. the State of _______________ submitted a SIP
rev sion that would add a NSR program for nonattainmnent areas to the SIP.
This program uses a plantwide definition of source. The State has yet to
submit and receive approval of an attainment demonstration for the
relevant areas, and hence did not rely on any reductions from the operation
of the new SR program in an approved attainment demonstration. Therefore,
E? here proposes to approve the adoption of a plantwide definition in
accor ’dance with its 1981 action inasmuch as the State has shown that it
s making, and will contnue to make, reasonable efforts to adopt and
s rnit the necessary additional SIP revisions. [ Describe the assurances.]

-------
r ii LV,) OU ii ( ‘tULU
OV 24 1&46
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Need for A Short—term Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
Analysis for the Proposed William A. Ziinmer Power Plant
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD—lU)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V (5AR—26)
This is in response to your November 17, 1986, memorandum, in which
you requested comment on Region V’s belief that prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permits must contain short-term emission limits to
ensure protection of the applicable national aiiibient air quality standards
(NAAQS) and PSD increments. I concur with your position and emphasize to
you that this position reflects our current national policy. Consequently,
I recommend that you continue to identify this apparent deficiency to the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and seek correction of the draft
permit for the William A. Zimmer Power Plant.
The PSD regulations clearly require that the application of BACT
conform with any applicable standard of performance under 40 CFR Part 60
at a minimum. However, this should not be taken to supersede any additional
limitations as needed to enable the source to demonstrate compliance with
the NAAQS and PSO increments. In the case of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), source
compliance with the 30-day rolling average emission limit under subpart Da
does not adequately demonstrate compliance with the short-term NMQS and
PSD increments. Consequently, enforceable limits pertaining to the
performance of the flue gas desulfurization system on a short—term basis
must also be established. Note, however, that the short-term limits can
result from either BACT analyses or the need to protect air quality.
Therefore, the short-term limit could be more stringent than the BACT
limit.

-------
2
I recognize that the sulfur variability issue tends to complicate
the setting of short—term SO 2 emission limits, but such limits must be
defined nevertheless. Continuous emission monitoring data from comparable
sources can be used in order to estimate worst-case short-term SO 2
emissions that could occur at the plant. The modeling techniques used to
determine compliance with the short-term NAAQS and increments should
employ the enforceable short—term SO 2 emission limits which the permitting
agency establishes.

-------
/ 7

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 167
(VOLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 167
* PN167—88—03--29—002
OPINION IN U.S. V. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
* PN167—88—07—15—003
PROCEDURES FOR EPA TO ADDRESS DEFICIENT NEW SOURCE PERMITS UNDER THE
CLEAN AIR ACT

-------
PN 167-88-07-15-003
/ O
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON 0 C. 20460
ii i S 88
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for EPA to Address Deficient New Source
Permits Under the Clean Air Act
FROM: Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air
Office of Enforcement and ompliance Monitoring
John S. Seitz,
Stationary Source Compliance Division /
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Addressees
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum transmits the final guidance for your use
in addressing deficient new source permits. After we distributed
the draft guidance for comment on December 16, 1987, several
Regional Offices took action on deficient new source permits.
The events surrounding those permit actions, as well as your
thoughtful comments on the draft guidance, have shaped the final
policy.
. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
We have incorporated most of your comments into the final
guidance. As you requested, we have included examples of forms
showing a request for permit review under 40 C.F.R. S124.l9, a
S167 order, and a S113(a)(s) finding of violation.

-------
—2—
Some COaunenters suggested that we include a section on
actions that can be taken, not against the source, but against
the state iaauing the deficient permit. We agree that this topic
should be included in the guidance because it surfaces repeatedly
in individual cases. Therefore, we have added a section on
possible actions against states for issuing deficient permits.
We have also clarified the guidance to indicate that EPA should
send a state written comments 3t both the draft and final permit
stage when a state is issuing what EPA considers a deficient
permit.
Some reviewers requested further elaboration of when to use
alternative enforcement responses. We have indicated relevant
considerations in determining which action to take. One commenter
pointed out that the guidance did not define what was meant by a
deficient permit.” This involves a determination that requires
the exercise of judgment. Rowever, we have tried to list most of
the criteria that will support a finding of deficiency. We
realize, however, that we may not have anticipated every deficiency
that may present itself to every Regional Office in the future.
Concern was expressed over the requirement to respond to a
deficient permit within thirty days. We realize that this is an
ambitious objective, but it is a legal requirement for permit
review under 40 C.F.R S124, and greatly enhances EPA’S equitable
position in challenges under S167 and S113(a)(5). It will be
easier to meet this deadline if Regional Offices have routine
procedures in place for prompt receipt of all permits from their
states and for thorough review of permits as they are received.
A few commenters wanted the guidance expanded to apply to
“netting” actions and “synthetic minor” sources. We agree that
guidance in this area would be useful, but the topic is too broad
to be folded into the same document as the guidance on deficient
permits. We have begun work to address appropriate enforcement
action for improper “synthetic minors” in the context of the
Federal Register notice announcing the program for federally
enforceable state operating permits. If you think that separate
enforcement guidance is needed on this subject, please let us
know.
Finally, a few reviewers questioned the guidance regarding
EPA directly—issued permits. We agree that, in all cases where
we find a deficiency, i is preferable to change the permit by
modifying its terms. If the source is amenable, we should do so.
However, if EPA cannot get the source to accept new permit condi-
tions, our only options are review under S124.19(b), revocation
of the permit, and/or enforcement action. A S124.19(b) review
must be taken withLn 30 days after the permit was issued. The

-------
—3--
regulations are unclear on EPA’s authority to revoke PSD permits.
In an enforceRent action to force a source, involuntarily, to
accept a perit change when the source has not requested the change
or made any nodification to its facility or operations, EPi must
always keep in mind the litigation practical ities and equities.
These make enforcing against a permit we have issued when we are
not basing our action on any new information a difficult
proposition.
CONCLUSION
We hope that this guidance will help EPA Regions act to
challenge deficient new source permits. Many of the practices
advocated in this document may be litigated in pending or future
cases. We will amend the guidance as necessary in light of
judicial developments. If you have any questions, please contact
attorney Judith Katz at FTS 382—2843.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Regional Counsel Air Branch Chiefs
Regionx I—X
Air a 3 Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, ‘1111, and X
PSD Contacts
Regions i—x

-------
—4--
Alan Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Greg Foote, 0CC
Gary NcCutchen
NPPB, AQMD (MD—l5)
Ron McCallum
Chief Judicial Officer
EPA
David Buente, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
DOJ

-------
itO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
\
tL I5
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for EPA to Address Deficient New
Source Permits Under the Clean Air Act
FROM: Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel, for Air
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
John S. Seitz,
Stationary Source Compliance D sion
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Addressees
I. Introduction
This guidance applies to permits issued for major new
sources and major modifications under both the prevention of
significant deterioration (PsD) program and the nonattainment
new source review (NSR) program. it contains three sets of
proeedure —— one for permits issued pursuant to EPA—approved
state programs (NSR permits and PSD permits in more than half
the states) one for permits issued by states pursuant to dele-
gations of authority from EPA, and one for instances where EPA
issues the permit directly. An appendix of model forms
appears at the end.
The need for this guidance has become increasingly evident
in the last two years. Before then, EPA had attempted only once,
in 1981, to enforce against sources constructing or operating
with new source permits the Agency determined to be deficient.
In 1986, gPA litigated Greater Detroit Recovery Facility v.
Adamkus et al . No. 86 —CU—72910—DT (October 21, 1986). In that
case, EPA wanted to enforce against a major stationary source
constructing with a PSD permit issued by Michigan under a dele-
gation agreement with EPA. The Agency had first determined that
the best available control technology (BACT) determination for
SO 2 in the permit was inadequate. Before EPA started formal
enforcement action, the source filed suit against the Agency,

-------
—2—
arguing that EPA had no authority to second guess 0 the BACT
determination and that, in any event, we should be equitably
foreclosed from Challenging the permit because we had remained
silent during the two years since we had failed to comment on the
permit. The court agreed and granted the source’s motion for
summary judgment.
The Detroit case was an example of the need for prompt and
thorough EPA review of and written comments on new source permits.
Our ability to influence the terms of a permit, both informally
and through legal procedures, diminishes markedly the longer EPA
waits after a permit is issued before objecting to a specific
term. This is due both to legal constraints, that is, tight time
limits for comments provided in the regulations, and to equitable
considerations that make courts -less likely to require new sources
to accept more stringent permit conditions the farther planning
and construction have progressed. Accordingly, as a prerequisite
to successful enforcement action, it is imperative that EPA
review all major source permit packages on a timely basis and
provide detailed comments on deficiencies. If EPA does not
obtain adequate consideration of those comments, it is also
important for EPA to protect air quality by prompt and consistent
enforcement action against sources whose permits are found lacking.
Because PSD permits are issued on a case—by—case basis,
taking into consideration individual source factors, permitting
decisions involve the exercise of judgment. However, although
not an exhaustive list, any one of the following factors will
normally be sufficient for EPA to find a permit deficient
and consider enforcement action:
1. 3ACT determination not using the Ntop_down approach.
2. BACT determination not based on a reasoned analysis.
3. No consideration of unregulated toxic pollutants in
BACT determination.
4. Public notice problems — no public notice & comment
period or deficiencies in the public notice.
5. Inadequate air quality modeling demonstrations.
6. Inadequate air quality analysis or impact analysis.
7. Unenforceable permit conditions.
8. For sources that impact Class I areas, inadequate
notification of Federal Land Manager or inadequate
consideration of impacts on air quality related
values of Class I areas.

-------
—3—
In NSR permitting, each of the following factors, while not
necessarily an exhaustive list, are grounds for a deficient
permit:
1. Incorrect LAER determination, i.e., failure to be at
least as stringent as the most stringent level achieved
in practice or required under any SIP or federally
enforceable permit.
2. No finding of state—wide compliance.
3. No emissions offsets or incorrect offsets.
4. Public notice problems - no public notice and comment
or deficiencies in public notice.
5. Unenforceable permit conditions.
II. Timing of EPA Response
A. Comment
Although EPA should know about every permit, at least by the
time it is published as a proposal, the Agency sometimes does not
learn about a permit during its development prior to the time the
final permit is issued. If we do become aware of the permit and
have objections to any of its terms, we should comment during the
developmental stage before the permit becomes final.
State agencies should send copies of all draft permit public
notice packages and all final permits to EPA immediately upon
issuance. (The requirements for contents of public notice packages
are set forth at 40 C.F.R. S51..166(q)(2)(ifi.).) The Regional Office
should review all draft permit public notice packages and final
permits during the 30 day comment periods provided for in the
federal regulations. it should write detailed comments whenever
Agency staff does not agree with the terms of a draft or final
permit. To make sure they get permits in time for review, Regional
Offices should consider requiring states with approved new source
programs, through Section lOS Grant Conditions, to notify them of
the receipt of all major new source permit applications. They
should also require states to send them copies of their draft
permits at the beginning of the public comment period.
Final permits should be required to be sent to EPA immediately
upon issuance. (Note that the requirement for Regions to review
draft and final permits is contained in guidance issued by Craig
Potter on December 1, 1987.) Regions should carefully check
their agreements with delegated states. These agreements require

-------
—4—
states to send draft permits to EPA during the comment period.
In addition, 40 C.F.R. S52.21(u)(2)(ii) requires delegated agencies
to send a copy of any public comment notice to the appropriate
regional office. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S124.15, a final permit
does not become effective until 30 days after issuance, unless
there are no comments received during the comment period, in
which case it becomes effective immediately. Regions should make
sure that delegated states know about permit appeal proceduresat
40 C.F.R. 5124 and, if necessary, issue advisory memoranda
notifying them that EPA will use these procedures if the Agency
determines a permit is deficient.
B. Formal Enforcement Action
If the permit was issued under a delegated program, it is
important to initiate formal review or appeal within 30 days after
the final permit is issued. (This response is set forth in
Section IV below. The 30 day period is required by the regula-
tions at 40 C.F.R. 5124.19). When enforcing against permits
issued under state programs, the same legal requirement to initiate
enforcement within 30 days does not exist, but it is still
extremely important to act expeditiously.
III. Enforcement Against the Source V. Enforcement Against
the State
If a state has demonstrated a pattern of repeatedly issuing
deficient permits, EPA may consider revoking the delegation for a
delegated state or acting under Section 113(a)(2) of the Act to
assume federal enforcement for an approved state. It is not
appropriate to issue a 5167 order to a state. Revocations of
delegated authority as to individual permits and revocations of
actual permits are theoretically possible, but they are unneces-
sary where EPA can act under Part 124 (i.e. within 30 days of
issuance). Revocation may be appropriate where Part 124 appeals
are unavailable, but likely will be subject to legal challenge.
IV. Procedures to Follow When Enforcing Against
Deficient Permits in Delegated Programs
A. If possible, the following actions before co! struction
commences:
1. Take action under 40 C.F.R. 5124.19(a) or (b) within
30 days of the date the final permit was issued to
review deficient provisions of the permit.
a. 5124.19(a) is an appeal, which may be taken by
any person who commented during the public comment
period.

-------
—s-
b. S124.19(b) is a review of the terms of the permit
by the Administrator under his own initiative.
Regional Offices informally request the Admini-
strator to take this action. They need not have
commented during the public comment period. The
Administrator has demonstrated a preference for
using S124.19(b) over Sl24.19(a ). In the four
instances thus far when he was given the choice
of acting under (a) or (b), he chose (b). However,
the Administrator may not have sufficient time to
act within 30 days in every situation in the
future.
2. In the majority of situations, it is more appropriate
for the Agency to act as one body to initiate review
under 5124.19(b). In some instances, however, the
third party role for a Regional Office, through 40
C.F.R. Sl 2 4.l9(a) may be preferable. Regions should
pick (a) or (b). However, if both provisions are
legally available, they should request, in the
alternative, that the Administrator act under the
provision other than the one chosen by the Region
should he deem it more appropriate. In particular,
if a Region requests the Administrator to act under
S124.19(b), it should ask that its memorandum be
considered as a petition for review under S124.19(a)
should review under 5124.19(b) not be granted within
30 days. This is to protect the Regions’ right to
appeal a permit if the Administrator does not have
Sufficient time to act. Therefore, all memoranda
requesting review should be written to withstand
public scrutiny if considered as petitions under
S124.19(a).
3. If the 30 day period for appeal has run and strong
equities in favor of enforcement exist, issue a S167
order and be prepared to file a civil action to
prohibit commencement of construction until the
Source secures a valid permit. (See Section IV B(2))
below.
B. For aourcea where construction has already commenced:
1. U the permit was issued less than 30 days previously
take action under 40 CFR 5124.19.
2. If the permit was issued more than 30 days previously,
issue a S167 order requiring immediate cessation of
construction until a valid permit is obtained. This

-------
—6—
step should only be taken if extremely strong equities
in favor of enforcement exist. Regions should be
keeping state and source informed of all informal
efforts to change permit terms before the 5167 order
is issued. S167 orders may be used both for sources
which have and have not commenced construction.
However, because the 5124.19 administrative appeal
and review process is available in delegated programs,
it is greatly preferred for challenging deficient
permits in states where it can be used.
3. If EPA determines that penalties are appropriate,
issue a NOV under Section 113(a)(1) of the Act for
commencement of construction of a major source or
major modification without a valid permit. This is
necessary because 5167 contains no penalty authority.
Note that strong equities for enforcement must exist
before taking this step. EPA can issue both a 5167
order requiring immediate injunctive relief and a
NOV if we decide that both are appropriate.
4. Follow up with judicial action under S167 and 5113(b)(2)
if construction continues without a new permit.
C. Note that the appeal provisions of 40 C.P.R. S124.19
apply to all delegated P53 programs even if 5124.19
is not specifically referenced in the delegation.
V. Procedures to Follow When Enforcing Against Permits in
EPA-Approved State Programs (All NSR and More Than
Half of the PSD Programs )
A. Issue S].13(a)(S) order (for NSR) or 167 order (for
PSD) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
30 days after the permit is issued, requiring the
source not to commence construction, or if already
started, to cease construction (on the basis that it
would be constructing with art invalid permit), and to
apply for a new permit. Note that EPA should issue
a $167 order if it has determined that there is a
reasonable chance the source will comply. Otherwise,
the Region should move directly to section V.3 below.
B. From the outset of EPA’S involvement, keep the
source informed of all EPA’S attempts to convince
the permitting agency to change the permit.
C. Issue an NOV (113(a)) as soon as construction commences
if EPA determines penalties are appropriate.

-------
—7—
D. If source does not comply with order, follow up with
judicial action under S167, Sl13(b)(5), or, if NOV
issued, S113(b)(2). If penalties are appropriate,
iseue NOV and later amend complaint to add a S113
count when 30 day statutory waiting period has run
- after initial action is filed under S].67.
VI. For EPA—issued Permits (Non—delegated )
A. If source submitted inadequate information
( q., misleading, not identifying all options)
and EPA recently found out about it,
1. If within 30 days of permit issuance, request
review by the Administrator under 40 C.F.R.
S124.19(b).
2. If permit has been issued for more than 30 days,
issue S167 or S113(a)(5) order preventing start-
up or, if appropriate, immediate cessation of
construction.
3. Issue NOV if construction has com.menced and EPA
determines penalties to be appropriate.
4. If necessary, request additional information from
source; if source cooperates, issue new permit.
5. Consider taking judicial action if appropriate.
EPA recogniz.?s the distinction between permits based on
faulty and correct information only for EPA directly—issued
permits. This distinction is necessary for EPA permits due
to equitable considerations.
B. If source submitted adequate information and EPA
issued faulty permit, we should attempt to get source
to agree to necessary changes and accept modification
of its permit. However, if source will not agree,
only available options are revoking the permit and
enforcing. Consolidated permit regulations are
unclear about EPA ’s authority to revoke PSD permits.
Because of this and the equitable problems associated
with enforcing against our own permits, unless new
information about health effects or other significant
findings is available, we may choose to accept the
permit. If faulty permit produces unacceptable
environmental risk, act under 40 C.F.R. 5124.19, if
possible. If action under 40 C.P.R. S124.19 not
possible, first revoke permit and then act as set
forth in Section IV.

-------
—8—
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Regional Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I—X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
PSD Contacts
Regions I—X
Alan Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Greg Foote, OGC
Gary McCutchen
NPPB, AQMD (MD-iS)
Ron McCallum
Chief Judicial Officer
Bob Van Heuvelen
Environmental Enforcement Section
Department of Justice
David Buente, Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
Department of Justice

-------
Appendix
1. Requeet for Review under 40 C.F.R.S124.19
2. S167 Order
3. Sll3(a ( ) finding of violation and accompanying S113(a)(l)
Notice of violation

-------
UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
nrr’ , REGION II
DATE 3
Request for Administrator to Initiate Review of
SUB .ECT. PSD Permit for Cajn en County Resource Recovery Facilj.ty
-d
Christopher
FROM Regional Ad I Ltfl or(
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
I am requesting that, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 124.19, you
review the PSfl portion of the air pollution permit issued
to Camden County Energy Recovery Associates for construction
of the Camden County Resource Recovery Facility in Camden,
New Jersey (CCRRF). The failure of the New Jersey State
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to include an
emission limit for PM 10 in the permit, to address BACT
adequately for PM 10 and to provide for public comment on PM 10
as a PSD affected pollutant are grounds for reviewing the DEP’s
actions in Issuing the permit and for staying the effective-
ness of the permit until all PSD requirements have been
met. As explained below, if you agree that review of this
permit is appropriate, you will have to notify the permittee
by January 11 . 1988, that you are initiating review of the
PSD portion of the permit.
This permit was issued under various authorities including
EPA’s PSI) permit authority, 40 C.F.R. 52.21, which is dele-
gated to DEP. Due to the promulgation of the new NAAQS for
PM 10 on July 1, 1987, the emissions of particulate matter
from the CCRRF became subject to the PSD rules. Particulate
matter was not previously subject to PSO because the area
was classified as nonattainrnent for the now withdrawn NAAOS
for total suspended particulate (TSP). My staff has
concluded that the permit and the permit review procedures
do not adequately address PM 10 under the applicable PSD
regulations. -
DEP was aware several months before it issued the permit
that the new PM 10 NAAQS for particulate matter would require
PSD review. Nevertheless, the permit does not include an
emission limitation for particulate matter expressed as
PM 10 emissions from the facility. Also, the analysis of the
control technology fails to demonstrate that the system
selected would provIde the best degree of emission control
currently available for PM 10 particulates. Finally, there is
a procedural problem with the permit as well. DEP did not
provide notice and an opportunity for the public to comment
on the PM 10 aspect of the permit, contrary to the regulatory
requirements and the express advice of Region II.
RU 1320-1 (9/65)

-------
—2—
The Delegation of PSD Authority to DEP
EPA Region II delegated PSD new source review authority to
DEP pursuant to 40 C.?.R. 52.21(u). The PSD permitting
authority delegated to the DEP is not restricted in any
way. The delegation is general in nature and includes all
PSD requirements as they are from time to time revised by
rulemaking.
Applicability of PM 1 () Requirements to CCRRP Permit
The application for the CCRRF air pollution control permit
was submitted on April 30, 1986. The DEP required the
application to be augmented until the application was
considered complete and the DEP noticed the permits for
public comment on April 28, 1987. A publi’, bearing was
held on May 28, 1987, in Camden New Jersey, and the public
comment period ended on June 12, 1987.
PSD requirements are applicable to this permit for particulate
matter because it is not in the class of permits and permit
applications that are covered by the grandfatherjng exemptions
of the PM 10 promulgation. No PSD application addressing partic-
ulate matter was submitted for the CCRR? before July 31. 1987.
At the time of the notice period, the facility was required
to undergo preconstructjo review under the SIP for TSP
because the area was nonattainment (secondary) for TSP but
Federal and State permits were not issued until December 7,
1987. Only sources with PSD applications for particulate
matter or with all Federal and State preconstruction approvals
or permits before July 31. 1987, are exempt from PSD review
for PM 10 . See , 40 C.F.R 52.21(c)(4)(jx) and (x) (52 Fed.
Reg . 24714, July 1, 1987).
We reminded the DEP, both orally and in writing, of the need
to satisfy the PSD requirements at 40 C.F.R. 52.21 for
sources of particulate matter as a result of the PM 10 pro-
mulgation. The DEP was informed that the CCRRF was not
grandfather and required additional PSD review to account
for PM 10 .
BACT Emission Limit Necessary for PM 1
The permit has no emission limitation for PM 10 . BACT is, by
definition, an emissions limitation rather than merely specified
types of equipment. 40 C.F.R. 52.2](b)(12). (The only exception
is when there are technological or economic limitations on the
application of measurement methodology.) Clearly the grand—
fathering provisions were meant to limit the class of major new
sources for which the particulate emission limit is expressed

-------
—3—
as TSP under the Clean Air Act. litbout an express limit
on PM 10 as £ permit condition, we are concerned that there
will be no sufficiently stringent, enforceable limit on
particulate matter for this facility.
Even if the difference between the actual rate of particulate
matter emissions smaller than 10 microns in size occuring as
a result of the TSP limit now in the permit and the PM 10
limit that should be in the permit proves to be small or
nonexistent, failing to correct this permit will leave a
muddled and uncertain basis for future enforcement. EPA
regulations clearly require that particulate matter emissions
be addressed under the PSD regulations for this permit and
that an ission limit be expressed in terms of PM 10 .
Region 11 is concerned that a TSP emission limit in an instance
where PM 10 was the PSD regulated pollutant may be unenforceable
especially in light of EPA’s conclusion that the NAAQS which
triggers PSD for particulate matter in the case of CCRRF’s
permit is the new PM 10 NAAQS. See , 52 Fed. Reg. 24694.
The State BACT Analysis
The DEP’S Hearing Officer found that there is no predictable
difference between a baghouse and an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) with respect to PM 10 collection efficiency and, there-
fore, concluded that the ESP determined adequate for TSP is
also adequate as BACT for PM 10 . Region I! considers the
BACT analysis by which the DEP reached its conclusion to be
unacceptably thin in its review of available data. The
only analysis which appears to be available is in a report
submitted by letter from the permittee dated November 16,
1987, responding to a November 2, 1987, request from DEP.
Our review of the BACT analysis shows that it is incomplete
and an inadequate basis for making necessary technical
judgments. Some questions are so fundamental that we
cannot make meaningful technical comments. For example:
1. That are the sources of the engineering
and economic data?
2. Why is there no comparison of the particulate
size and garbage characteristics at the
cited facilities and what is anticipated
at CCRRF?
3. What were the test methods efnployed in
obtaining the emissions data from the
cited failities?
4. Why were three United States facilities
referenced but not considered in the
analysis?

-------
—4—
5. Was the removal efficiency data based on
a ayst comparable to CCRRF’ which
includes a dry scrubber before the
electrostatic precipitator or baghouse?
These are just 6ome of the questions that we have and which
we would normally review with a PSD permit applicant before
public comments are solicited. With the date of the submission
being November 16, 1987, and the permit issuance date being
December 7, 1987, we do not believe that any meaningful
questioning of the permittee’s analysis was done by the
DEP. The mere three weeks between the Submission of the
report and permit issuance did not allow the Region a
meaningful opportunity to resolve EPA concerns.
Public Comment on PM 1 PSD Review
In early November, 1987, DEP informed Region II that it had
completed the necessary PSD analysis for PU 10 but needed to
issue the permit with little or no time for a public comment
period with respect to PM 10 because of an impending financing
deadline. On the basis of DEP assurances that PH 10 had
been adequately addressed, Region II staff Suggested to DEP
staff that DEP might be able to justify a shortened public
comment period, but emphasized that an opportunity for
public comment to review the PM 10 analysis was necessary.
(EPA’s OGC and OAQPS orally concurred with Region Ii ’s pos-
ition.) DEP acknowledged the need for public comment and
agreed to follow appropriate, but shortened, procedures.
Region II received a copy of and began to review the
permittee’s November 16, 1987, submission. With no notice
for public comment and no further notice to EPA. DEP issued
the air permits to CCRRF along with SPDES and solid waste
permits on December 7, 1987.
Region II ’ s advice with respect to the comment period
assumed adequate trea ent of PM 10 under PSD requirements.
Having subsequently reviewed the BACT analysis and the
permit itself, we now believe that these do not meet the
requireme t of P8D and any reason to allow less than 30
days for public comment on the PM 10 analysis would be
unjustified.
Recommendation
I am asking that you initiate review of the CCRRF permit
with respect to compliance with PSD review procedures
applicable to PM 10 . Specifically, the review should address:
1. The failu,re to include BACT expressed as a PM 10
emission limit In the permit,

-------
—5—
2. The adequacy of the review of available technology
in establishing BACT.
3. The failure to provide for public comment regarding
the PM limitations.
A Dec nber 1, 1987, memorandum from Craig Potter, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, calls for regional offices
to monitor state compliance with preconstruction reviews to
prevent instances such as this. We have done so in this case
but were not consulted by the DEP when it decided to reject
EPA’s direction and issue the permit. We expect that the DEP
and the permittee will correct this action rather than go
through the entire review process but the issuance of the
permit leaves us with no choice but to seek to commence review
to prevent the action taken by DEP from becoming final action.
We are prepared to continue working with the DEP to act on the
permit expeditiously should the DEP and the permittee agree to
remedy the deficiencies discussed above. We have also explained
to the DEP that, if appropriate, Region II could request a stay
of EPA’s permit review proceedings in the interim. In this
regard, the DEP has contacted Region II and is exploring ways
to take valid legal action on their own which would eliminate
the need for you to act on this request for review by January 11.
If the DEP should take such action, we sill notify you immedir
I request that you alert me before you issue an order under
S 124. 19(c).
Procedures and Time Limitations
We are concerned that review procedures be initiated within
the time period allowed by the regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 124,
so that we are not foreclosed from raising these important
issues. Under 5124.19(a), if this is construed as a petition
for review, the petition must be filed within 30 days of service
of the notice by the DEP of its final permit decision and the
Administrator must issue an order granting the review within a
reasonable time. 5124.19(c). If for any reason you determine
that 5124.19(a) is not the proper procedure, we would request
you to initiate review on your own initiative under S124.19(b),
which appears to require you to act within the initial 30 days.
Based on the issuance of the permit on December 7, 1987, we
calculate that the 30 day period from the issuance of the
permit will end on January 11. 1988. Pursuant to S124.20(a),
the time began to run on the day after permit issuance. Since
service of the DEP notice was by mail, we have added three days
to the prescribed time in accordance with S124.20id. The
thirty—thir,d day after December 7, 1987, is January 9, 1988,
which is a Saturday, and S124.20(c) provides that the time
period is extended to the next working day which is MoDday,
January 11, i98 .. If this is construed as a review on your

-------
-6—
own initi tjve, notice must be given by this date and ye recommend
that nctice gr*nting review in either case be provided by
January 11, 1988.
The regional office filed comments on the draft permit
within the DEP’ public comment period. See , Hearing
Officer’s Report, December 7, 1987, Appendix B. We Construe
the definition of person in S124.41 to include an EPA
regional office. Therefore the Region, as a person who filed
comments, is a proper party to file a petition for review under
S124. 19(a).
By whichever means review is initiated, the review procedure
is intended to prevent raising facts or issues on appeal that
were not raised in the public comment period. See , 45 Fed .
33411, Col. 3 (May 19, 1980). Section 124.19(a) requires
a statement that the issues being raised for review were raised
during the comment period to the extent required by Part 124.
A person’s obligation is to wraise all reasonably ascertain-
able issues and submit all reasonably available arguments
by the close of the public comment period. S124.13.
The issues raised herein were not required to be raised earlier
since these issues could not have been known at the time the
comment period closed on June 12, 1987. Indeed, we had advised
the DEP that a public comment period should be provided so that
public comments could be received on the PM 10 permit decision,
Notice of the initiation of the review procedures should be
sent to:
Mr. Robert Donahue
President
Camden County Energy Recovery Associates
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
Mr. Richard T. Dewling
Commi ssioner
New Jersey State Department of
Envjro atal Protection
401 East State Street
CN .027
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Mr. Gary Pierce
Chief
Bureau of Engineering and
Regulatory Development
Division of Environmental Quality
New Jersey State Department of
Environjnenta]. Protection
401 East State Street
CN—027
Trenton, New Jersey 08625

-------
—7—
Enclosed are copies of the following documents upon which this
request is based:
1. PERJ4IT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OR ALTER
CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT AND TEMPORARY
CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT
AND PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION PERMIT
December 7, 1987
2. HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT FOR THE
APPLICATION BY CAMDEN COUNTY ENERGY RECOVERY ASSOCIATES
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE
A SOLID WASTE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
December 7, 1987
3. Letter fr Robert F. Donahue, President, Ca.mden
County Energy Recovery Associates to Jorge H.
Berkowitz, New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection, Subject: Camden County Resource Recovery
Facility PM 10 BACT Analysis, with enclosure
November 16, 1987
Enclosures (3)
cc: Thomas L. Adams, LE—133
Francis S. Blake, LE—130
J. Craig Potter, ANR—443
Ronald L. M Cal1um, A—1O1

-------
U UTCD STATES Cr1VtRPNMC 4TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
In the matter o :
L KC COUNTY ASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY
Order
OKMWMPKA , FLORIDA )
PROC ED(NGS UNDER
SECTION 167 OF T E CLEAN
AIR ACT, AS AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. 57477
AD’IIN!STRATIVE ORDER
This Administrative Order is issued this date by the
ReOional Adi inistrator, Ret ion IV, United States Environmental
Protection Aaency (EPA), pursuant to S’ ctiort 167 of the Clean
Air ct (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 57477.
FINPING OF FACT
1. The URG/Recovery Group. Inc., proooses to construct and
onerate a La ce County Waste to Cnerly Facility (Lake County)
in Okahumoka, Lake County, Florida. The Lake County facility
will consist of two mass burn incinerators which will each
incinerate approximately 23() tons per day of municipal solid
waste. These incinerators will be fueled with a combination
of municipal solid waste and wood chips. These incinerators
‘4i11 emit particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S )2). rn troc1er
oxides, carbon rionoxide, volatile orqanic cOmpour d5, lead,
5erylliir’ , fluoride, sulfuric acid mist, mercury, dioxins.

-------
—2—
dibenzoturans, and hydrogen chloride. All ot L!R :c-
mentioned pollutants are regulated by the Act c t noxins,
dibenzoturans, and hydrogen chloride.
2. The area of construction of the Lake t J :uLy Waste to
Energy Facility is located in an attainment re or all
pollutants regulated by the Act. (40 Code ot Federal Regulations
(C.F.R.) S81.310J The facility is considered a major stationary
source Decause its potential emissions (which are subject
to regulations under the Act) art above the Prevention of
LigruLicant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality threshold
level. Consequently, this facility is regulated under the
PSD rules and regulations.
3. On March 11, 1986, the NRC/Recovery Group applied to
the r’ioriaa Department or Environmental Regulation (DER) ror
a PSO permit to construct ana operate two 250 tons per day
municipal solid waste energy recovery units at its Lake Counts’
racihity located on Jim Rog ers Road in OkaI unpka, Florida,
pursuant to the Florica State Implementation Plan (SIP)
(Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 17—2.500 et seg.J.
4. On May 20, 1986, in response to said PSD application,
the Florida DER issued a Preliminary Determination which
contained, in the State’s judgment, the Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) for the proposed incinerators.
The BACT Determination contained emission limits for all
applicable pollutants regulated by the Act and contemplated
that a oaghouse (to control particulates) in combination

-------
—3—
with a scrubber (to control acid gases) constituted BACT.
5. On 3uly 2, 1986, EPA notified the Florida DER that
the SO2 emission limit contained in the Florida DER B. CT
Determination may not adequately reflect BACT (i.e., pro sod
SO 2 emission limit not sufficiently stringent) and that the BACT
Determination should also consider the effect of controlling
S02 on unregulated pollutants such as hydrogen chloride and
dioxin. Furthermore, EPA informed OCR that it was EPA policy
t at the control of nonregulated air pollutants may be
considered in imposing a more strinqertt RACT limit on regulated
pollutants, if there is a reduction in the nonregulated air
pollutants which can be directly attributed to the control
device selected for the abatement of the regulated pollutants.
6. On August 15, 1986, OCR issued a second PSD Preliminary
Deterii ination with a modified BACT fleterrnination. The modified
BACT Determination no longer contained the requirement for acid
gas controls, but only requ’ired that the applicant leave
space for the acid gas control equipment in the event there
would be a future state rule change for resource recovery
facilities. Removal of the requirement to employ acid gas
control meant the modified BACT Determination could not
adequately address EPA 4 s concern about a more stringent S02
emission limit.
7. On Settember 19, 1986, EPA notified OCR that EP WaS
not persuaded by Lake County’s contention that muriici7al
solid waste incineration wLt acid c as control is not

-------
—4—
economically feasible.
8. On September 24, 1986, the Florida DER issued its
Final Determination and PSD permit to the NRC/Recovery Group
for the proposed Lake County facility. The Final Determination
and State P50 permit did not require the Installation of acid
gas control.
9. On October 23. 1986, EPA notified the Florida DER
that EPA did not concur with DER’s Final Determination
regarding the issue of RACT. EPA recommended that the Final
Deterr’unation and the Florida DER nermit be reissued with a
BACT Determination which reflects state—of—the—art technology
(acid gas control and more stringent emission limitations
for particulate matter and SO 2 ).
10. on January 30. 1987, EPA—Region IV prepared an
independent BACT analysis, which varied from DER’s Final
Deternination,, in that it contained “tore stringent emission
limitations for particulate , ,.matter and S02 (achieved through
the use of high efficiency particulate emission and acid
gas controls).
11. On February 11, 1987, EPA notified Florida DEPS that
the DER PSD permit issued to the NRG/Recovery Group for the
Lake County facility on September 24, 1986. was deficient and
that EPA may initiate appropriate enforcement action against
the Lake County facility to prevent or delay the construction
o the facility.
12. On February 11, 1987, EP notified the P RG/Recovery

-------
—5—
Group that the Florida DtR PSD permit was deticient and that
unless the DER PSD permit was modified to reflect wr at EPA
considers ACT, EPA may initiate appropriate enforcement
action to prevent or delay the construction of the tacility.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Administrator of the EPA pursuant to his authority
un er Sectjcn 109 ot the Act, 42 U.S.C. 57409, promulgated
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standarcis
(NAAQS) for certain criteria pollutants, including total suspended
particulate matter, sultur oxides (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxicie,, ozone, and lead. (40 C.F.R. c5u.4 — 50.12)
2. Pursuant to Section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 74l0,
tne Aamlnistrator of EPA, in 45 Federal ister 52(.76
(August 7, 1980), pror ulgated amended regulations for PSD
in areas where the existing air quality is better than
saici ambient Standarcjs and ncorporatea said regulations
into the various implementation plans or each state. The
relevant regulations are coditieø at 40 C.F.R. S51.24.
3. The Florida SIP contains federally approved PSD
regulations, based on the above—referenced PSD regulations,
tor such attaineinent or uclean air TM areas. (F.A.C. Rule
17—2.500)
4. The area o construction for the Lake County Waste to
nerg ’ tacility is an attainment area tor NAAQS tor all
pollutants. (40 C.F.R. §81.31u)

-------
—6—
5. NRC/Recovery Group is the owner and operator ot the
major emitting resource recovery facility in Lake County,
Florida, and proposes to construct at that site pursuant
to the PSD permit issued to the Lake County Waste to
Energy facility by Florida DER on September 24, 1986.
6. EPA tinds the Florida DER P50 permit issued to
the Lake County Waste to Energy facility to be deficient
in that it tails to require the installation of acid
gas control. The Florida DEk PSD per ut also tails to
require more stringent emission limitations tor particu-
late matter and SO 2 . ‘Ihese deficiencies invalidate the
State—issued PSD permit.
7. The construction ot the Lake County Waste to
Energy tacility pursuant to an invalid perrut will violate
Section lf 5(a) or the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7475(a), and 40 C.F.R.
§51.24. Consequently, the issuance of this order, pursuant
to Section 167 of the Act, ‘2 U.S.C. 57477, is required
to prevent such construction.
8. The authority ot the Administrator ot EPA pursuant
to Sll3(a) ot the Act, 42 U.S.C. 57413(a), to make findings
of violation of the F1orid SIP, to issue notices ot violation
and to conter with the alleged violator has been delegated,
first, to the Regional Administrator (earlier delegation
consolidatea to Delegations Manual, No. 7—6 ( .July 25, 1984))
and second, to the Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
Managerr’ent Division, ReQion IV (e r1icr del gat1on consolicatec
I

-------
—7—
in Region IV Delegation Manual, No. 4—2 (March 15, 1985)].
9. The authority of the Administrator of EPA to issue
orders pursuant to Section 167 of the Act, 42 u.s.c. 57477,
was delegated to the Regional Administrator [ earlier delegation
Consolidated to Delegations Manual, No. 7—38 (July 25, 1984)).
The Regional Administrator, Region IV, has also Consulted
with the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air and the Director
of the Stationary Source Cor pliance Djvj j pursuant to
delecation requirement.
ORDER
Consequentjy, baseø upon investigation and analysis of
all relevant facts, including any good taith ettorts to
comply, and pursuant to Section 167 of the Clean Air Act,
42 u.s.c. S7477, the NRC/Recovery Group, Inc. (Lake County
ast to Energy facility), is hereby ORDERED:
1. ettective immediately upon receipt cit this Order,
not to COrUi ence any On—Site construction activity ot a
permanent nature on its two 25u tons per day nunlcipal solia
waste energy recovery units, including, but not limited to,
installation of building supports and foundations, paving,
laying of underground pipe, construction of permanent storage
structures and activities ot a similar nature.
2. not to conunence any on—site construction activity
until it has received a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) iicrmit and Final Determination that incorporates all

-------
tr. requirements for P 50 pursuant to anc in accoroancc- with
ch provisions ot Part C, Subpart 1 ot the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 V.S.C. S7470 et. g., the regulations promulgated
thereunder at 40 C.F.R. S51.24 and/or the regulations of the
federally enforceable Florida State Implementation Plan, Rule
17—2.500 of the Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 403
ot the Florida Statutes including EPA’s Best Available Control
Technology analysis, dated January 30, 1987 (which addresses
acia gas control ana more stringent emission limitations tor
suirur cioxide and particulate matter), and;
3. to submit, no later than ten (10) days atter receipt
ot this Order, certitication that the prohibition in paragraph
one (1) or this Order has been observed ano will continue to
be obst rved until the permit referenced in paragraph two
(2) or this Oroer has beenissued. Such certirication
snail be suumitted to
Winston A. Smith, Director
Air, Pesticides, ano Toxics
Management Division
United States Environmental
Protection Aciency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347—3043
JUN 3 1987
ate Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator

-------
UNITED STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
IN REGARDING: )
)
Indiana Department of Environmental ) FINDING OF VIOLATION
Management ) EPA-5—86-A-5o
St. Joseph County Health )
Department )
Air Pollution, Permit to Operate )
Dated February 6, 1986, to )
A.M. General Coporatlon )
)
A PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO )
SECTION 113(a)(5) OF THE )
CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED )
( 42 U.S.C. Section 7413 (a))
INTRODUCTION
On February 6, 1986, the St. Joseph County Health Department, as
duly authorized delegate of the State of Indiana, issued a permit to
operate several air pollution sources operated by All General Corporation
located at 13200 McKinley, Mishawaka, Indiana.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
For reasons set forth below, the Administrator finds that the permit
to operate, issued by the St. Joseph County Health Department on February 6,
1986, to All General Corporation, (AMG) failed to comply with the requirements
of Indiana Air Pollution Control Regulation APC—19 Section 4 and 8 that the
St. Joseph County Health Department, as duly authorized delegate of the
State of Indiana, did not act in compliance with those requirements.
The per*lt to operate Issued by St. Joseph County Health Department on
February 6, 1986, to AM General Corporation increased the Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) em1ss ons from 197.3 tons per year to 377.0 tons per year.
This VOC emission lncreasp of 179.7 tons pe year allowed to AMG, subjects
the facility to Regulat:on APC—19.

-------
2
egulation APC-19’Sectlon 4 b(4) requires any person proposing the
construction, modification or reconstruction of a major facility which will
Impact on the air quality of a nonattainment area or which will be located
In a nonattainment area, shall comply with the requirement of Section 8 of
this regulation, as applicable.
Regulation APC—19 Section 8 requires the same person to demonstrate
along with other requirements:
(1) Increased emissions of the pollutant are to be offset and
are equal to 90 percent or less of the offsetting emissions.
(2) ApplIcation of emissions limitation devices or techniques
such that the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) for
the poflutant will be achieved.
This document serves as notification that the Administrator, by duly
delegated authority, has made a finding under Section l13(a)(S) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, 42 u.s.c 47413(a)(S), and Is served on both the State
of Indiana and Its delegate, the St. Joseph County Health Department, as
well as AM General Corporation to prov de an opportunity to confer with
the Adm n;strator pr or to in tiat1on of a civil action pursuant to Section
113(b)(5). By offering the opportunity for Such a conference or participating
in one, the Administrator does not waive his right to co ,nence a civil action
irrr ediate1y under Section 113(b).
Date: 19 7IIIIL ’ /
David Kee, reCtOr
Air Management flivislon

-------
— S S. h i — fl — — — S hi’ ‘ — ‘ ‘‘‘‘‘ hi — h_ S J ’ — fl _ II , 1
REGION V
)
In the Matter of: )
)
AM GENERAL CORPORATION ) NOTICE OF VIOLATION
MISHAWAKA,1NDIANA ) EPA-S-86-A-49
)
Proceedings Pursuant to )
Section 113(a)(1) of the )
Clean Air Act, as amended )
[ 42 U.S.C. Section 7413(a)(l)] )
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
This Notice of Violation Is lssued pursuant to Section 113(a)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. Section 7413(a)(1)); iereafter
referred to as the Act.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
•The Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA), by authority duly delegated to the undersigned, finds:
1. Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (IAPCB) Regulation
APC—19 dealing with °eriiiits, P50, Emission Offsets, Is
part of the applicable implementation plan for the State
of Indiana approved by U.S. EPA on February 16, 1982,
at 47 Federal Register 6621 and establish operating and
Construction permit requirements pertaining to AM General
Corporation’s facility located at 13200 McKinley Highway,
Mishawa a, Ind ana.
2. As Indicated more specifically below:
AM General Corporation (AMG) operates a miscellaneous metal part
coating facility In Mishawaka, Indiana wfllch Is in violation
of IAPCB regulation APC—19 as given below:
(a) On February 6, 1986 AM General Corporation was Issued a
permit to operate, by St. Joseph County Health Department.
This permit to operate allows AMG, to increase Its volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emissions from 197.3 tons per year
to 377 tons per year, This VOC emission increase of 179.7
tons per year allowed to AMG subject the facility to IAPCR
regulaton APC-19.
(b) This perv t to operate issued to AMG, fafled to comply
with t. re. ir.r ments of IAPC regulation APC-19, SectIon
4 and

-------
2
(1) the applicant did not apply emission limitation
devices or techniques SUCh that the Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) for VOC was
not achieved.
(ii) the Increased VOC e i1ssions were not offset by
a reduction In VOC emission by existing facilities.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
The Administrator of the U.S. EPA, by authority duly delegated to the under-
signed, notifies the State of Indiana and the AM General Corporation, that
the facility described above Is In violation of the applicable Implementation
p’an as set forth In the Finding of Violation.
DATE 19 . 7IIIII ,/’
David Kee, flirector
Air Management Division

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON 0 C 20460

.iR 29 L988
O”.rE oc
( ‘ORrMr½, *..o
MEMORANDUM
‘a
SUBJECT: Opinion in U.S. V. Louisiana pacjfic Corporation , Civil
Action No. 86-A-1880 (D. Colorado, March 22, 1988 )
FROM: Michael S. Alushjn 2tt . ‘a,-
Associate Enforcement Couñ el
Air Enforcement Division
TO: Thomas L. Adams, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
On March 22, Judge Alfred A. Arraj of the District of Colorado
issued his opinion in this case which was tried in Denver between
January 19—26, 1988. EPA had brought an enforcement action
against Louisiana_pacific Corporation (LPc) for violations of the
prevention of significa deterioration (PSD) regulations under
the Clean Air Act. The violations occurred when LPC constructed
two waferboard plants in Kremmling and Olathe, Colorado without
first obtaining PSD permits. Judge Arraj found that EPA had not
met its burden of proving that the Olathe plant was subject to
PSD requ1remen g, but held that LPC had violated PSD regulations
at the Kremm ling plant. Judge Arraj did not find that LPC had
received an economic benefit from its violation, however, and
assessed a civil penalty of $65,000. This is the first enforcement
case for PSD violations exclusively to go to trial.
Discuss ion
Although the amount of the civil penalty awarded by Judge
Arraj is modest, his opinion contains good law for EPA. The
adverse holdings were based on narrow issues of fact and cannot
act as precedent for future litigation. The important legal
issues discussed include the proper implementation of the thirty
day notice provision of 42 U.S.C. §7413 and a thorough analysis
of the term “potential to emit.”

-------
—4—
The defendant had argued that, in order to collect penalties
under ll3, EPA must prove that a source was in violation for the
30 day period of time immediately following the issuance of the
NOV and that any other events transpiring after this period are
irrelevant. The judge held that “the jurisdictional requirement
of 42 U.S.C. P413 has been met if the source Commits the specific
violation alleged in the NOV anytime after the 30 day grace
period has run.” He found that any other construction would
contravene the goals and purposes of the entire Clean Air Act
enforcement program.
The opinion restated Judge Arraj’s position on the proper
construction of the term “potential to emit” as first set forth
in his Memorandum Opinion on cross motions for summary judgment
issued October 30, 1987. That opinion stated that “restrictions
contained in state permits which limit specific types and amounts
of actual emissions (blanket restrictions on emissions) are not
properly considered in the determination of a source’s potential
to emit.a Slip opinion at 35—36. However, other federally
enforceable permit restrictions which restrict hours of operatic -n
or amounts of material combusted are properly included.
The opinion stated that, in testing a source to determine
potential to emit, “the unit being tested must be operated during
the test in the manner in which it is designed to be operated
• . . . (w)ithin that constraint, the unit must be operated at
maximum capacity, or ‘full throttle’ throughout the test.” Slip
opinion at 30. Judge Arraj was persuaded by LPC’s testimony that
a March 1985 stack test of emissions at the Olathe plant was not
performed under conditions within which the equipment was designed
to be operated. Because this stack test was the government’s
only piece of evidence that PSD requirements applied to the
Olathe plant, the judge dismissed EPA’s claim for relief for the
Olathe violations.
Significantly, Judge Arraj held that federally enforceable
permit limitations Cannot act to limit potential to emit where
such limits are ignored or violated. He found that I PC had
knowingly violated the production limitations in its state
construction permit for the Kremmling facility. Because of this
violation, . ruled that the production limits could not be
employed in determining potential to emit. Moreover, he held
tnat “regular and willful violation of one permit limitation
• . . • should eliminate consideration of any other permit
limitations. . . . which would otherwise apply to the source.”
Slip opinion at 41.

-------
In arriving at an appropriate penalty, Judge Arraj found
that there was no economic benefit from delayed compliance. His
conclusion was based on the reasoning that, by the first date of
LPC’s violation, LPC had already installed and was operating the
control equipment that probably would have been required as best
available control technology (BACT) if LPC had applied for a PSD
permit. The first date of violation was found to be November
1986, when LPC first exceeded the production limits in its state
permit.
However, the court ruled that:
Were this court to assess a nominal penalty only in
this case, it would give sanction to a willful disrea ird
of the PSD regulatory framework, and encourage other
sources in the future to disregard other lawful
restrictions on operations whenever convenient to do
80 . . . . (T)he burden of guessing correctly (what
emissions will be) remains with the source, and .
a mistake in this process can indeed result in a
penalty. Otherwise, future sources that are unsure of
whether they will qualify as a major source will have
no incentive to apply for PSD permits, which,
undisputedly, is a burden. Slip opinjor at 49-50.
Judge Arraj did not explan how he arrived at the figure of $65,000.
Conclusion
The amount of the penalty awarded by the Court is significantly
less than the government sought at trial. However, the opinion
contains language that will be helpful precedent for cases in the
-future. Tne reasons for the court’s relatively small penalty
turn on narrow.lssues of fict peculiar to this specific case and
cannot be used generally by other sources in future litigation.
While the government has not made a definite decision about
whether to appeal, it seems likely that we will accept Judge
Arraj’s decision. A copy of the opinion is attached.
Attachment
CC: Gerald Elison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Civil Enforcement
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division

-------
—4—
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I , III , and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air Branch Chiefs/Team Leaders
Office of Regional Counsel
Regions I—X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Air Division
Regions I-X

-------
—5—
b. S124.19(b) is a review of the terms of the permit
by the Administrator under his own initiative.
Regional Offices informally request the Admini-
strator to take this action. They need not have
commented during the public comment period. The
Administrator has demonstrated a preference for
using S124.19(b) over Sl24.19(a ). In the four
instances thus far when he was given the choice
of acting under (a) or (b), he chose (b). However,
the Administrator may not have sufficient time to
act within 30 days in every situation in the
future.
2. In the majority of situations, it is more appropriate
for the Agency to act as one body to initiate review
under Sl24.l9(b). In some instances, however, the
third party role for a Regional Office, through 40
C.F.R. Sl 2 4.19(a) may be preferable. Regions should
pick (a) or (b). Rowever, if both provisions are
legally available, they should request, in the
alternative, that the Administrator act under the
provision other than the one chosen by the Region
should he deem it more appropriate. In particular,
if a Region requests the Administrator to act under
S 1 24.19(b), it should ask that its memorandum be
considered as a petition for review under Sl24.] .9(a)
should review under 5124.19(b) not be granted within
30 days. This is to protect the Regions’ right to
appeal a permit if the Administrator does not have
Sufficient time to act. Therefore, all memoranda
requesting review should be written to withstand
public scrutiny if considered as petitions under
S124.19(a).
3. If the 30 day period for appeal has run and strong
equities in favor of enforcement exist, issue a S167
order and be prepared to file a civil action to
prohibit commencement of construction until the
source secures a valid permit. (See Section IV B(2))
below.
B. For Sources where construction has already commenced:
1. If the permit was issued less than 30 days previously
take action under 40 CFR S124.19.
2. If the permit was issued more than 30 days previously,
issue a S167 order.requjring immediate cessation of
COflStrUCti n until a valid permit is obtained. This

-------
—6—
step should only be taken if extremely strong equities
in favor of enforcement exist. Regions should be
keeping state and source informed of all informal
efforts to change permit terms before the S167 order
is issued. Sl67 orders may be used both for sources
- which have and have not commenced construction.
However, because the S124.19 administrative appeal
and review process is available in delegated programs,
it is greatly preferred for challenging deficient
permits in states where it can be used.
3. If EPA determines that penalties are appropriate,
issue a NOV under Section 113(a)(l) of the Act for
commencement of construction of a major source or
major modification without a valid permit. This is
necessary because S167 contains no penalty authority.
Note that strong equities for enforcement must exist
before taking this step. EPA can issue both a S167
order requiring immediate injunctive relief and a
NOV if we decide that both are appropriate.
4. Follow up with judicial action under S167 and S113(b)(2)
if construction continues without a new permit.
C. Note that the appeal provisions of 40 C.F.R. S124.19
apply to all delegated PSD programs even if S]24.19
is not specifically referenced in the delegation.
V. Procedures to Follow When Enforcing Against Permits in
EPA-Approved State Programs (All NSR and More Than
Half of the PSD Programs )
A. Issue S113(a)(5) order (for NSR) or 167 order (for
PSD) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
30 days after the permit is issued, requiring the
source not to commence construction, or if already
started, to cease construction (on the basis that it
would be constructing with an invalid permit), and to
apply for a new permit. Note that EPA should issue
a S167 order if it has determined that there is a
reasonable chance the source will comply. Otherwise,
the Region should move directly to section V.D below.
B. ?rom the outset of EPA’S involvement, keep the
source informed of all EPA’S attempts to convince
the permitting agency to change the permit.
C. Issue an NOV (113(a)) as soon as construction commences
if EPA determines penalties are appropriate.

-------
—7—
D. If source does not comply with order, follow up with
judicial action under S167, S113(b)(5), or, if NOV
i8sued, S113(b)(2). If penaitLes are appropriate,
iS8Ue NOV and later amend complaint to add a S113
Count when 30 day statutory waiting period has run
- after initial action ,s filed under Sl67.
VI. For EPA-issued Permits (Non—delegated )
A. If source submitted inadequate information
( q., misleading, not identifying all options)
and EPA recently found out about it,
1. If within 30 days of permit issuance, request
review by the Administrator under 40 C.F.R.
S124.19(b).
2. If permit has been issued for more than 30 days,
issue S167 or S113(a)(5) order preventing start-
up or, if appropriate, immediate cessation of
Construction.
3. Issue NOV if construction has commenced and EPA
determines penalties to be appropriate.
4. If necessary, request additional information from
source; if source cooperates, issue new permit.
5. Consider taking judicial action if appropriate.
EPA recoaniz s the distinction between permits based on
faulty and correct information only for EPA directly—issued
permits. This distinction is necessary for EPA permits due
to equitable considerations.
B. If source submitted adequate information and EPA
issued faulty permit, we should attempt to get source
to agree to necessary changes and accept modification
of its permit. However, if source will not agree,
only available options are revoking the permit and
enforcing. Consolidated permit regulations are
unclear about EPA’s authority to revoke PSD permits.
Because of this and the equitable problems associated
with enforcing against our own permits, unless new
information about health effects or other significant
findings is available, we may choose to accept the
permit. If faulty permit produces unacceptable
environmental risk, act under 40 C.F.R. S124.19, if
possible. If action under 40 C.F.R. S124.19 not
possible, first revoke permit and then act as set
forth in Section IV.

-------
—8—
Addressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Regional. Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I—X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
PSD Contacts
Regions I—X
Alan Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Greg Foote, 0CC
Gary McCutchen
NPPB, AQMD (MD—is)
Ron McCallum
Chief Judicial Officer
Bob Van Heuvelen
Environmental Enforcement Section
Department of Justice
David Buente, Chief
Cnviron entaj. Enforcement Section
Departaent of Justice

-------
Appendix
1. Request for Review under 40 C.F.R.S124.19
2. 5167 Order
3. S113(a (S) finding of violation and accompanying S113(a)(1)
Notice of violation

-------
UNITED STATES ENVtRONMEP.IrAL PROTECT$ON AGENCY
nrr • REGION II
DATE “ S & i i
Request for Administrator to Initiate Review of
SUS. ECT. PSD Permit for Cain en County Resource Recovery FaciUty
FROM
TO Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
I am requesting. that, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 124.19. you
review the PST) portion of the air pollution permit issued
to Camden County Energy Recovery Associates for construction
of the Camden County Resource Recovery Facility in Camden,
New Jersey (CCRRF). The failure of the New Jersey State
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to include an
emission limit for PM 10 in the permit, to address BACT
adequately for PM 10 and to provide for public comment on PM 10
as a P 50 affected pollutant are grounds for reviewing the DEP’s
actions in issuing the permit and for staying the effective-
ness of the permit until all PSD requirements have been
met. As explained below, if you agree that review of this
permit is appropriate, you will have to notify the permittee
by January 11. 1988, that you are Initiating review of the
PSD portion of the permit.
This permit was issued under various authorities including
EPA’s PSr) permit authority, 40 C.FIR. 52.21, which is dele-
gated to DEP. Due to the promulgation of the new NAAQS for
PM 10 on July 1, 1987, the emissions of particulate matter
from the CCRRF became subject to the PSD rules. Particulate
matter was not previously subject to P50 because the area
was classified as nonattainment for the now withdrawn NAAOS
for total suspended particulate (TSP). My staff has
concluded that the permit and the permit review procedures
do not adequately address PM 10 under the applicable PSD
regulations.
DEP was aware several months before it issued the permit
that the new PM 10 NAAQS for particulate matter would require
PSD review. Nevertheless, the permit does not include an
emission limitation for particulate matter expressed as
PM 10 emissions from the facility. Also, the analysis of the
control technology fails to demonstrate that the system
selected would provitle the best degree of emission control
currently available for PM 10 particulates. Finally, there is
a procedural problem with the permit as well. DEP did not
provide notice and an opportunity for the public to comment
on the PM 10 aspect of the permit, contrary to the regulatory
requirements and the express advice of Region II.
RH 13 20—I (51a5)

-------
—2—
The Delegation of PSD Authority to DEP
EPA Region II delegated PSD new source review authority to
DEP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 52.21(u). The PSD permitting
authority delegated to the DEP is not restricted in any
way. Thedelegation is general in nature and includes all
PSD requirements as they are from time to time revised by
rul emaki ng.
Applicability of PMiô Requirements to CCRRP Permit
The application for the CCRRF air pollution control permit
was submitted on April 30, 1986. The DEP required the
application to be augmented until the application VaS
considered complete and the DEP noticed the permits for
public comment on April 28, 1987. A publii bearing was
held on May 28, 1987, in Camden, New Jersey, and the public
comment period ended on June 12, 1987.
PSD requirements are applicable to this permit for particulate
matter because it is not in the class of permits and permit
applications that are covered by the grandfatherjng exemptions
of the PM 10 promulgation. No PSD application addressing partic-
ulate matter was submitted for the CCRRF before July 31, 1987.
At the time of the notice period, the facility was required
to undergo preconstruction review under the SIP for TSP
because the area was nonattajnment (secondary) for TSP but
Federal and State permits were not issued until December 7,
1987. Only sources with PSD applications for particulate
matter or with all Federal and State preconstruction approvals
or permits before July 31, 1987, are exempt from PSD review
for PM 10 . See , 40 C.P.R 52.2l(C)(4)(i ) and (x) (52 Fed.
24714, July 1, 1987).
We reminded the DEP, both orally and in writing, of the need
to satisfy the PSD requirements at 40 C.P.R. 52.21 for
sources of particulate matter as a result of the PM 10 pro-
mulgation. The DEP was informed that the CCRRF was not
grandfatber and required additional PSD review to account
for PM 10 .
BAC’l’ Emission Limit Necessary for PM 1
The permit has no emission limitation for PM 10 . BACT is, by
definition, an emissions limitation rather than merely specified
types of equipment. 40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(l2). (The only exception
is when there are technological or economic limitations on the
application of measurement methodology.) Clearly the grand—
fathering provisions were meant to limit the class of major new
sources for which the particulate emission limit is expressed

-------
—3—
as TSP under the Clean Air Act. Without an express limit
on PM 10 as a permit condition, we are concerned that there
‘11]. be no sufficiently stringent, enforceable limit on
particulate matter for this facility.
Even if the difference between the actual rate of particulate
matter emissions smaller than 10 microns in size occuring as
a result of the TSP limit now in the permit and the PM 10
limit thatahould be in the permit proves to be small or
nonexistent, failing to correct this permit will leave a
muddled and uncertain basis for future enforcement. EPA
regulations clearly require that particulate matter emissions
be addressed under the PSD regulations for this permit and
that an emission limit be expressed in terms of PM 10 .
Region II is concerned that a TSP emission limit in an instance
where PM 10 was the PSD regulated pollutant may be unenforceable
especially in light of EPA’s conclusion that the NAAQS which
triggers PSD for particulate matter in the case of CCRRF’S
permit is the new PM 10 NAAQS. See , 52 Ped. Reg. 24694.
The State SAC? Analysis
The DEP’S Hearing Officer found that there is no predictable
difference between a baghouse and an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) with respect to PM 10 collection efficiency and, there-
fore, concluded that the ESP determined adequate for TSP is
also adequate as BACT for PM 10 . Region II considers the
BACT analysis by which the DEP reached its conclusion to be
unacceptably thin in its review of available data. The
only analysis which appears to be available is in a report
submitted by letter from the permittee dated November 16,
1987, responding to a, November 2, 1987, request from DEP.
Our review of the BAC analysis shows that it is incomplete
and an inadequate basis for making necessary technical
judgments. Some questions are so fundamental that we
cannot make meaningful technical comments. Por example:
1. What are the sources of the engineering
and economic data?
2. Thy is there no comparison of the particulate
size and garbage characteristics at the
cited facilities and what is anticipated
at CCRRF?
3. What were the test methods employed In
obtaining the emissions data from the
cited failities?
4. Why were three United States facilities
referenced but not considered in the,
analysis?

-------
—4—
5. Its the removal efficiency data based on
a system comparable to CCRRF’s which
includes a dry scrubber before the
electrostatjc precipitator or baghouse?
These are just some of the questions that we have and which
we would normally review with a PSD permit applicant before
public comments are solicited. With the date of the Submission
being November 16, 1987, and the permit issuance date being
December 7, 1987, we do not believe that any meaningful
questioning of the permittee’s analysis was done by the
DEP. The mere three weeks between the submission of the
report and permit issuance did not allow the Region a
meaningful opportunity to resolve EPA concerns.
Public Comment on PM 1 PSD Review
In early November, 1987, DEP informed Region II that it had
completed the necessary PSD analysis for PM 10 but needed to
issue the permit with little or no time for a public comment
period with respect to PM 10 because of an impending financing
deadline. On the basis of DEP assurances that PM 10 had
been adequately addressed Region II staff suggested to DEP
staff that DEP might be able to justify a shortened public
comment period, but emphasized that an opportunity for
public comment to review the PM 10 analysis was necessary.
(EPA’s OGC and OAQPS orally concurred with Region II’s pos-
ition.) DE acknowledged the need for public comment and
agreed to follow appropriate, but shortened, procedures.
Region II received a copy of and began to review the
permittee’s November 16, 1987, submission. With no notice
for public comment arid no further notice to EPA, DEP issued
the air permits to CCRRF along with SPDES and solid waste
permits on December 7, 1987.
Region II’s advice with respect to the comment period
assumed adequ&te treatment of PM 10 under PSD requirements.
Having subsequently reviewed the BACT analysis and the
permit itself, we now believe that these do not meet the
requirements of PSD and any reason to allow less than 30
days for public comment on the PM 10 analysis would be
Unjustified.
Recornmendat ion
I a.m asking that you initiate review of the CCRRF permit
with respect to compliance with PSD review procedures
applicable to PM 10 . Specifically, the review should address:
1. The failq,re to include BACT expressed as a PM 10
emission limit in the permit,

-------
—5—
2. The adequacy of the review of available technology
in establishing BACT.
3. The failure to provide for public comment regarding
the PMj limitations.
A December 1, 1987, memorandum from Craig Potter, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, calls for regional offices
to monitor state compliance with preconstruction reviews to
prevent instances such as this. We have done so in this case
but were not consulted by the DEP when it decided to reject
EPA’s direction and issue the permit. We expect that the DEP
and the permittee will correct this action rather than go
through the entire review process but the issuance o.f the
permit leaves .us with no choice but to seek to commence review
to prevent the action taken by DEP from becoming final action.
We are prepared to continue working with the DEP to act on the
permit expeditiously should the DEP and the permittee agree to
remedy the deficiencies discussed above. We have also explained
to the DEP that, if appropriate, Region II could request a stay
of EPA’s permit review proceedings in the interim. In this
regard, the DEP has contacted Region II and is exploring ways
to take valid legal action on their own which would eliminate
the need for you to act on this request for review by January 11.
If the DEP should take such action, we will notify you immedir
I request that you alert me before you issue an order under
S 124. 19(c).
Procedures and Time Limitations
We are concerned that review procedures be initiated within
the time period allowed by the regulations, 40 C.P.R. Part 124,
so that we are not foreclosed from raising these important
issues. Under S124.19(a), if this is construed as a petition
for review, the petition must be filed within 30 days of service
of the notice by the DEP of its final permit decision and the
Administrator must issue an order granting the review within a
reasonable time. 5124.19(c). If for any reason you determine
that 5124.19(a) is not the proper procedure, we would request
you to initiate review on your own initiative under S124.19(b) ,
which appears to require you to act within the initial 30 days.
Based on the issuance of the permit on December 7, 1987, we
calculate that the 30 day period from the issuance of the
permit will end on January 11, 1988. Pursuant to S124.20(a),
the time began to run on the day after permit issuance. Since
service of the DEP notice was by mail, we have added three day
to the prescribed time in accordance with S124.20(d). The
thirty—third day after December 7, 1987, is January 9, 1988,
which is a Saturday, and S124.20(c) provides that the time
period is extended to the next working day which is Monday,
January 11, 198 . .. If this is construed as a review on your

-------
-6—
own Initi,tjve, notice must be given by this date and we recommend
that octice gr*nting review in either case be provided by
January 11 . 1988.
The regional office filed comments on the draft permit
within the DEP’s public comment period. See . Hearing
OZfic r’e Report, December 7, 1987, Appendix B. We construe
the definition of person in S124.4 1 to include an EPA
regional office. Therefore the Region, as a person who filed
comments, is a proper party to file a petition for review under
S124.19(a). -
By whichever means review is initiated, the review procedure
is intended to prevent raising facts or issues on appeal that
were not raised in the public comment period. See , 45 Fed .
33411, Col. 3 (May 19, 1980). Section 124.19(a) requires
a statement that the issues being raised for review were raised
during the comment period to the extent required by Part 124.
A person’s obligation is to ‘raise all reasonably ascertain-
able issues and submit all- reasonably available argu.ments
• . by the close of the public comment period.’ S124.13.
The issues raised herein were not required to be raised earlier
since these issues could not have been known at the time the
comment period closed on June 12, 1987. Indeed, we had advised
the DEP that a public comment period should be provided so that
public comments could be received on the PM 10 permit decision.
Notice of the initiation of the review procedures should be
sent to:
Mr. Robert Donahue
President
Camden County Energy Recovery Associates
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
Mr. Richard T. Dewling
Commi Ssioner
New Jersey State Department of
Envjro ota1 Protection
401 East State Street
CN—027
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Mr. Gary Pierce
Chief
Bureau of Engineering and
Regulatory Development
Division of Environmental Quality
New Jersey State Department of
Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
CN—027
Trenton 1 New 1 Jersey 08625

-------
—7—
Enclosed Ire copies of the following documents upon which this
request is based:
1. PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OR ALTER
CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT AND TEMPORARY
CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT
AND PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION PERMIT
December 7, 1987
2. HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT FOR THE
APPLICATION BY CAMDEN COUNTY ENERGY RECOVERY ASSOCIATES
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE
A SOLID WASTE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
December 7, 1987
3. Letter fr Robert F. Donahue, President, Camden
County Energy Recovery Associates to Jorge H.
Berkowitz, New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection, Subject: Camden County Resource Recovery
Facility PM 10 BACT Analysis, with enclosure
November 16, 1987
Enclosures (3)
cc: Thomas L. Adams, LE—133
Francis S. Blake, LE—130
J. Craig Potter, ANR—443
Ronald L. M Ca1lum, A—1O1

-------
Ut ITED . SThTES CI 3VIR()NMCNT/\L PROTFCTION AG JCY
Rr.GroN IV
In the matter O :
LAKE COUMTY WASTE TO ENER(Y FACILITY
Order
OKUMP(A. FLORiDA )
PROCEEDEN S UNDCR
SECTION 161 OF THE CLEAN )
AIR ACT, P.5 AMEPJflED, 42 U.S.C. 57477
ADPIINISTRATIVT ORDER
This Administrative Order is issued this date by the
Re iorta1 Administrator, Tkeqion IV, United States Environrtent l
Protection Açiency (EPA). pursuant to Section 167 of the Clean
Air Act (the Act), 42 u.S.C. 57477.
Ft flING OF FACT
1. The NRG/Recovery Inc., proposes to construct and
onerate a Lake County Waste to F’.nerqy Facility (Lake County)
in OkaI’iumpka, Lake County, Florida. The Lake CoUnty facility
will consist of two mass burn incinerators which will each
incinerate apr roximatety 2S0 tons per day of municipal solid
waste. These incinerators will be fueled with a combination
of rwnicipal solid waste and wood chips. These incinerators
‘.iill ernie particulate matter, sulfur dioxide ($02), nitrooe
oxides, carhon r on xide, volatile oroanic co pOunci , leads
5eryl1iu , fluoride, sulfuric acid mist, nercury, dioxins 4

-------
—2—
dibenzoturans, and hycrogen chloride. All 01 Lh zc :-
mentioned pollutants are regulated by the Act e ’t Jloxins,
dibenzoturans, and hydrogen chloride.
2. The area of construction of the Lake “ ;‘it .y Waste to
Energy Facility is located in an attainmer.t ureJ ::or all
pollutants regulated by the Act. (40 Code ot Federal Regulations
(C.F.R.) §81.310] The facility is considered a major stationary
Source Decause its potential emissions (Which are subject
to regulations under the Act) are above the Prevention ot
SignlL.icant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality threshold
level. Consequently, this facility is regulated under the
PSD rules and regulations.
3. On March 11, 1986, the NRG/Recovery Group applied to
the c’iorioa Departr ent ot Environmental Regulation (DER) tor
a PSL) permit to construct anu operate two 2 0 tons per cay
r unicipa1 solid waste cnergy recovery units at its Lake County
racility located on Jim Rog.ers Road in Okahumpka , Florida,
pursuant to the Flonica State Implementation Plan (SIP)
(Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 17—2.500 et seq.).
4. On May 20, 1986, in response to said PSD application,
the Florida DER issued a Preliminary Determination which
contained, in the State’s judgment, the Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) for the proposed incinerators.
The BACT Determination contained emission limits for all
applicable pollutants regulatt d by the Act and contemplated
that a DaghouSe (to control part.iculates) in combination

-------
—3—
with a scrubber (to control acid gases) constituted BACr.
5. On July 2, 1986,, CPA notified the Florida DER that
the SO 2 emission limit contained in the Florida DER B.\CT
Determination may not adequately reflect BACT (i.e., oro ed
S02 emission limit not sufficiently stringent) and that the BACT
Determination should also consider the effect of controlling
502 on unregulated pollutants such as hydrogen chloride and
dioxin. Furthermore, EPA informed DER that it was EPA policy
t at the control of nonregulated air pollutants may be
considered in iriposirig a more stringent BACT limit on regulated
pollutants, if there is a reduction in the nonregulated air
pollutants which can be directly attributed to the control
device selected for the abatement of the regulated oollutarits.
6. On August 15, 1986, DER issued a second PSD Preliminary
Determin tiOfl with a modified BACT Determination. The n odified
8 CT Determination no longer contained the requirement for acid
gas controls, but only requ’ired that the applicant leave
space for the acid gas control equipment in the event there
would be a future state rule change for resource recovery
facilities. Removal of the requirement to employ acid gas
control meant the modified BACT Determination could not
adequately address EPA’S concern about a more stringent S02
emission limit.
7. on September 19, 1986, EPA notified DCR that EPk w S
knot persuaded by Lake County’s contention that murucipal
solid waste nc r eratLOn wit i acid qas control is not

-------
—4—
economically feasible.
8. On September 24, 1986, the Florida DER issued its
Final Determination and PSD permit to the NRG/Recovery Group
for the proposed Lake County facility. The Final Determination
and State PSD permit did not require the installation of acid
gas control.
9. On October 23, 1986, EPA notified the Florida DER
that EPA did not concur with DER’s Final Determination
regarding the issue of BACT. EPA recommended that the Final
Determination and the Florida DER nermit be reissued with a
BACT Determination which reflects state—of—the—art technology
(acid gas control and more stringent emission limitations
for particulate matter and SO2).
10. On January 30. 1987, EPA—Region IV prepared an
independent BACT analysis, which varied from DER’s Final
Deterrunation, in that it contained more stringent emission
limitations for particulate ,,.matter and SO 2 (achieved through
the use of high efficiency particulate emission and acid
gas controls).
11. On February 11, 1987, EPA notified Florida DEP. that
the DER PSD permit issued to the NRG/Recovery Group for the
Lake County facility on September 24, 1986, was deficient and
that EPA may initiate appropriate enforcement action against
the Lake County facility to prevent or delay the construction
of the facility.
12. On February 11, 1987, EP notified the NRG/Recovery

-------
—5—
Group that the Florida D R PSD permit was deticient and that
unless the DER PSD permit was modified to reflect wriat EPA
considers ACT, EPA may initiate appropriate enforcement
action to prevent or delay the construction of the tacility.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Administrator of the EPA pursuant to his authority
unQer Secticn 109 ot the Act, 42 U.S.C. 57409, promulgated
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standarcis
(NAAQS) for certain criteria pollutants, including total suspended
particulate matter, sulfur oxides (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxicie, ozone, and lead. (40 C.F.R. 555u.4 — 50.12)
2. Pursuant to Section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410,
the Aciministrator of £PA, in 45 Federal 9ister 52b76
(August 7, 1980), prorlulgaced amended reg ilations for PSD
in areas where the existing air quality is better than
saici ambient stancarcis and ncorporateo said regulations
into the various implementation plañs ot each state. The
relevant regulations are coditieø at 40 C.F.R. S51.24.
3. The Florida SIP contains federally approved PSD
regulations, based on the above—referenced PSD regulations,
for such attainement or “clean air” areas. (F.A.C. Rule
17—2.500)
4. The area ot constructl.on for the Lake County Waste to
.nergy tacility is an attainment area tor NAAQS tor all
pollutants. (40C.E.g. §81.31u)

-------
—6—
5. I4RC/Recovery Group is the owner and operator or the
major emitting resource recovery facility in Lake County,
Florida, and proposes to construct at that site pursuant
to the PSD permit issuedto the Lake County Waste to
Energy facility by Florida DER on September 24, 1986.
6. EPA finds the Florida DCR PSD permit issued to
the Lake County Waste to Energy facility to be deficient
in that it rails to require the installation ot acid
gas control. The Florida DER PSD permit also fails to
require more stringent emission limitations tor particu-
late matter and SO 2 . These deficiencies invalidate the
State—issued PSD permit.
7. The construction ot the Lake County Waste to
Eiergy racility pursuant to an invalid permit will violate
Section 1(,5(a) or the Act, 42 U.S.C. S7475(a), and 40 C.F.R.
551.24. Consequently, the issuance of this order, pursuant
to Section 167 o the Act, ¶2 U.S.C. 57477, is required
to prevent such construction.
8. Ihe authority ot the Administrator of EPA pursuant
to 5113(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 57413(a), to make findings
ot violation of the Florida SIP, to issue notices ot violation
and to conter with the alleged violator has been delegated,
first, to the Regional Administrator [ earlier delegation
consolidated to Delegations Manual, No. 7—6 (July 2 , 1984))
and Second, to the Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics,
Manager ent Division, ReQion IV [ e rlicr delegation consolloatec

-------
—7-.
in Region IV Delegation Manual, No. 4—2 (March 1 , 1985)]
9. The authority of the Administrator ot EPA to issue
orders pursuant to Section 167 of t he Act, 42 U.s.c. S7477,
was delegated to the Regional Administrator [ earlier delegation
consolidated to Delegations Manual, No. 7—38 (July 25, 1984)].
The Regional Administrator, Region Iv, has also Consulted
with the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air and the Director
of the Stationary Source Con pliance Division pursuant to
delegation requirement.
ORDER
Consequently, based upon investigation and analysis of
all relevant facts, including any good taith etforts to
comply, and pursuant to Section 167 ot the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. 57477, the NRG/Recovery Group, Inc. (Lake County
-aste to Energy facility), is h reby ORDERED:
1. ettective immediately upon receipt ot this Order,
not to commence any On—Site construction activity or a
permanent nature on its two 25u tons per day nunicipal solia
waste energy recovery units, including, but not limited to,
installation of building supports and foundations, paving,
laying of underground pipe, construction of permanent Storage
structures and activities ot a similar nature.
2. not to commence any on—site construction activity
until it has received a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit and Final Deterrn nation that. incorporattis all

-------
—8—
u.L• requirements for PSD pursuant to ana in accorcancc with
he provisions ot Part C, Subpart 1 ot the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 ).S.C. 7470 et. the regulations promulgated
thereunder at 40 C.F.R. S51.24 and/or the regulations of the
federally enforceable Florida State Implementation Plan, Rule
17—2.500 of the Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 403
ot the Florida Statutes including EPA’s Best Available Control
S
Technology analysis, dated January 30, 1987 (which addresses
acia gas control ana more stringent emission limitations tor
suirur dioxide and particulate matter), and;
3. to submit, no later than ten (10) days atter receipt
ot this Order, certirication that the prohibition in paragraph
one (1) or this Order has been observed ana will continue to
be observed until the permit referenced in paragraph two
(2) or this Oroer has been issuea. Such certirication
snail e suumitted to.
Winston A. Smith, Director
Air, Pesticides. ana Toxics
Management Division
United States Environmental
Protection Mency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347—3043
JUN - 3 1987 7’ -’-
Date Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator

-------
UNITED STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
IN REGARDING:
)
Indiana Depertment of Environmental ) FINDING OF VIOLATION
Management ) EPA-5—86-A.5o
St. Joseph County Health )
Department )
Air Pollution, Permit to Operate )
Dated February 6, 1986, to )
A.M. General Coporatlon )
)
A PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO )
SECTION 113(a)(5) OF THE )
CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED )
( 42 U.S.C. Section 7413 (a))
INTRODUCTION
On February 6, 1986, the St. Joseph County Health f)epartment, as
duly authorized delegate of the State of Indiana, issued a permit to
operate several air pollution sources operated by AM General Corporation
located at 13200 McKinley, Mishawaka, Indiana.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
For reasons set forth below, the Administrator finds that the peri nt
to operate, issued by the St. Joseph County Health Department on February 6,
1986, to AM General Corporation, (AMG) failed to comply with the requirements
of Indiana Air Pollution Control Regulation APC.19 Section 4 and R that the
St. Joseph County Health Department, as duly authorized delegate of the
State of Indiana, did not act in compliance with those requirements.
The per*1t to operate Issued by St. Joseph County Health Department on
February 6, 1986, to AM General Corporation Increased the Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) em1ss ons from 197.3 tons per year to 377.0 tons per year.
This VOC emission increasp of 179.7 tons p&- year allowed to AMG, subjects
the facility to Regulat:or% APC-19.

-------
2
egulatlon APC-19’Sectlon 4 b(4) requires any person proposing the
construction, modification or reconstruction of a major facility which will
impact on the air quality of a nonattainment area or which wlfl be located
In a nonattainment area, shall comply with the requirement of Section 8 of
this regulation, as applicable.
Regulation APC—19 Section 8 requIres the same person to demonstrate
along wIth other requirements:
(1) Increased emissions of the pollutant are to be offset and
are equal to 90 percent or less of the offsetting emissions.
(2) ApplicatIon of emissions limitation devices or techniques
such that the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) for
the pollutant will be achieved.
This document serves as notification that the Administrator, by duly
delegated authority, has made a finding under Section 1l3(a)(S) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C F 7413(a)(S), and Is served on both the State
of Indiana and Its delegate, the St. Joseph County Health Department, as
well as AM General Corporation to prov de an opportunity to confer with
the Adm rrstrator prior to in tiat1on of a civil action pursuant to Section
113(b)(5). By offering the opportunity for SUCh a conference or participating
in one, the Administrator does not waive his right to conTnence a civil action
imediately under Section 113(b).
Date: 19
ffavid Kee, fl rector
Air Management fl1v1 1On

-------
UNITED STATES EMVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A(EMCY
REGION V
)
In the Matter of: )
)
AM GENERAL CORPORATIO 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION
MISHAWAKA,.. INDIANA ) EPA-S-86.A-49
)
Proceedings Pursuant to )
Section 113(a)(1) of the )
Clean Air Act, as amended )
(42 U.S.C. Section 7413(a)(1)) )
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
This Notice of Violation Is lssued pursuant to Section 113(a)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. Section 7413(a)(lfl; tereafter
referred to as the Act.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA), by authority duly delegated to the undersigned, finds:
1. Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (!APCB) Regulation
APC—19 dealing with 0 ermlts, P50, EmissIon Offsets, Is
part of the applicable Implementation plan for the State
of Indiana approved by U.S. (PA on February 16, 1982,
at 47 Federal RegIster 6621 and establish operating and
construction permit requirements pertaining to AM General
Corporation’s facility located at 13200 McKinley Highway,
Mishawaka, jndana.
2. As indicated more specifically below:
AM General Corporation (AMG) operates a miscellaneous metal part
coating facility In Mishawaka, Indiana which Is in violation
of IAPCB regulation APC—19 as given below:
(a) On February 6, 1986 AM General Corporation was Issued a
permit to operate, by St. Joseph County Health Department.
This permit to operate allows AMG, to increase its volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emissions from 197.3 tons per year
to 377 tons per year. This VOC emission increase of 179.7
tons per year allowed to AMG subject the facility to IAPC
regulaton APC— 19. -
(b) This pent to operate Issued to AMG, faMed to comply
with t’ e. ir.r ments of IAPCB regulation APC-19, Sect on
4 and 1

-------
2
(1) the applicant did not apply emission limitation
devices or techniques Such that the Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (L.AER) for VOC was
not achieved.
(11) the Increased VOC emissions were not offset by
a reduction In VOC emission by existing facilities.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
The Administrator of the U.S. EPA. by authority duly delegated to the under-
signed, notifies the State of Indiana and the AN General Corporation, that
the facility described above Is In violation of the applicable Implementation
plan as set forth In the Finding of Violation.
DATE 19 1
David kee, flirector
Air Management Division

-------
PN 16788-03-29-002
UNITED S T ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WAS H NGTON D C 20460
$, ‘ /
4, 0 t
/ _
‘— .—-
‘ 1 R 29 1988
O”ir o
£ØdOIfE FIIT £F4D
MEMORANDUM CO’du*. ,r IyoM ,G
SUBJECT: Opinion in U.S. v. Louisiana-pacific Corporation , Civ .l
Action No. 86—A—1880 CD. Colorado, March 22, l 8 )
FROM: Michael S. Alushjn 1L.I J ,& 2Z ,-
Associate Enforcement Couk e1
Air Enforcement Djvj j
TO: Thomas L. Adams, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
3. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation ( R—443)
On March 22, Judge Alfred A. Arraj of the District of Colorado
issued his Opinion in this case which was tried in Denver between
January 19—26, 1988. EPA had brought an enforcement action
against Louisiana_pacific Corporation (LPC) for violations of the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations under
the Clean Air Act. The violations occurred when LPC constructed
two waferboàrd plants in Kremmling and Olathe, Colorado Without
first obtaining PSD permits. Judge Arraj found that EPA had not
met its burden of proving that the Olathe plant was subject to
PSD requ1reme , but held that LPC had violated PSD regulations
at the Kremmlirig plant. Judge Arraj did flOt find that LPC had
received an economic benefit from its violation, however, and
assessed a civil penalty of $65,000. This is the first enforcement
case for PSD violations exclusively to go to trial.
Discuss ion
Although the amount of the civil penalty awarded by Judge
P rraj is modest, his opinion contains good law for EPA. The
adverse holdings were based on narrow issues of fact and cannot
act as precedent for future litigation. The important legal
issues discussed include the proper implementation of the thirty
ay notice provision of 42 U.S.C. 74 13 and a thorough analysis
f the term “potential to emit.”

-------
—2—
The defendant had argued that, in order to collect penalties
under 1.l3, EPA mUst prove that a source was in violation for the
30 day period of time immediately following the issuance of the
NOV and that any other events transpiring after this period are
irrelevant. The judge held that Ithe jurisdictional requirement
of 42 U.S.C. §7413 has been met if the source commits the specific
violation alleged in the NOV anytime after the 30 day grace
period has run.” He found that any other construction would
contravene the goals and purposes of the entire Clean Air Act
enforcement program.
The opinion restated Judge Arraj’s position on the proper
construction of the term “potential to emit as first set forth
in his Memorandum Opinion on cross motions for summary judgment
issued October 30, 1987. That opinion stated that “restrictions
contained in state permits which limit specific types and amounts
of actual emissions (blanket restrictions on emissions) are not
properly considered in the determination of a source’s potential
to emit.” Slip opinion at 35—36. However, other federally
enforceable permit restrictions which restrict hours of operatic -n
or amounts of material coibusted are properly included.
The opinion stated that, in testing a source to determine
potential to emit, “the unit being tested must be operated during
the test in the manner in which it is designed to be operated
• . • • (W)ithin that constraint, the unit must be operated at
maximum capacity, or ‘full throttle’ throughout the test.” Slip
opinion at 30. Judge Arra] was persuaded by LPC’s testimony that
a March 1985 stack test of emissions at the Olathe plant was not
performed under conditions within which the equipment was designed
to be operated. Because this stack test was the government’s
only piece of evidence that PSD requirements applied to the
Olathe plant, the judge dismissed EPA’s claim for relief for the
Olathe violations.
Significantly, Judge Arraj held that federally enforceable
permit limitations cannot act to limit potential to emit where
such limits are ignored or violated. He found that LPC had
knowingly violated the production limitations in its state
construction permit for the Kremmling facility. Because of this
violation, . ruled that the production limits could not be
employed in datermining potential to emit. Moreover, he held
that “regular and willful violation of one permit limitation
• . . . should eliminate consideration of any other permit
limitations. . . . which would otherwise apply to the source.”
Slip opinion at 41.

-------
—3—
In arriving at an appropriate penalty, Judge Arraj found
that there was no economic benefit from delayed compliance. His
conclusion was based on the reasoning that, by the first date of
LPC’s violation, LPC had already installed and was operating the
control equipment that probably would have been required as best
available control technology (BAC’r) if LPC had applied for a PSD
permit. The first date of violation was found to be November
1986, when LPC first exceeded the production limits in its state
permit.
However, the court ruled that:
Were this court to assess a nominal penalty only in
this case, it would give sanction to a willful. disrea rd
of the PSD regulatory framework, and encourage other
sources in the future to disregard other lawful
restrictions on operations whenever convenient to do
so . . . . (T)he burden of guessing correctly (what
emissions will be) remains with the source, and .
a mistake in this process can indeed result in a
penalty. Otherwise, future sources that are unsure of
whether they will qualify as a major source will have
no incentive to apply for PSD permits, which,
undisputedly, is a burden. Slip opinion at 49—50.
Judge Arraj did not explan how he arrived at the figure of $65,000.
Conclusion
The amount of the penalty awarded by the Court is significantly
less than the government sought at trial. However, the Opinion
Contains language that will be helpful precedent for cases in the
--future. The reasons for the court’s relatively small penalty
turn on narrow.issues of fict peculiar to this specific case and
cannot be used generally by other sources in future litigation.
While the government has not made a definite decision about
whether to appeal, it seems likely that we will accept Judge
Arraj’s decision. A copy of the opinion is attached.
At tachme t
CC: Gerald Emiaori, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Civil Enforcement
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division

-------
—4-
John S. Seitz , Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I , 111 , and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air Branch Chiefs/Team L. eaders
Office of Regional Counsel
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Air Division
Regions I-X

-------
7( 9,4

-------
Page No. 1
03/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CAA SECTION 169A
(VCLUM 2
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 169A
* PN169A—86—11—1O—002
VISIBILITY PROTECTION STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (SIP’S)--VISIBILITY
SIP’S PART II

-------
PN 169A-86-11-1O-002
OVt A - 10, i9S
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Visibility Protection State Implementation Plans (SIP’s)-—
Visibility SIP’s Part II
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD—15)
TO: Director, Al r Management Division
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
Regions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, and X
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Is currently developing
Part II visibility plans for certain States in accordance with a settlement
agreement with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the National Parks
and Conservation Association. The EPA completed actions related to Part I
of the settlement agreement by approving the SIP’s or prorrulgating Federal
implementation plans (FIP’s) for visibility monitoring and new source
review (NSR). Part II of the settlement agreement required EPA to determine
the adequacy of the existing SIP’s to meet the remaining provisions of the
1980 visibility regulations, i.e., implementation control strategies,
integral vista protection, and long—term strategies (40 CFR 51.302, 51.304,
and 51.306 respectively). The EPA completed this action on January 23,
1986, at 51 FR 3046 in which EPA preliminarily determined that the SIP’s of
32 States were deficient with respect to the Part II provisions. The settlement
agreement required EPA to propose and promulgate FIP’s (or approve SIP’s)
to remedy these deficiencies on a specified schedule. The EPA and EDF have
recent1y revised the schedule in the agreement which affects both Federal
and State actions. This memorandum describes the new schedule and outlines
the requirements for SIP submittals.
REVISED SCHEDULE
The old settlement agreement required EPA to propose FIP’s to remedy
all deficiencies by June 20, 1986, and for States to subniit SIP revisions to
EPA by December 20, 1986. Because of time constraints, EPA could not

-------
2
develop appropriate plans to meet this deadline. In particular, EPA needed
additional time to develop a data base and evaluate the necessity of control
strategies to remedy impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas where
the Federal land managers (FLM’s) had certified that visibility impairment
existed. In addition, EPA recognized the need for additional time to approve
SIP revisions submitted in response to the settlement agreement. Therefore,
EPA negotiated revisions to the settlement schedule which reflect these
needs. The revisions to the settlement agreement, which were approved by
the court on September 9, are summarized below:
FEDERAL ACTIONS DEADLINE
FLM’s certify impairment June 1, 1986
General provisions
Propose FIP’s February 28, 1987
Promulgate FIP 1 s October 31, 1987
Provisions related to impairment
Propose FIP’s August 31, 1988
Promulgate FIP’s April 30, 1989
STATE SIP SUB1 ITTAL DEADLiNE
Avoid proposal of FIP October 31 , 1986
Avoid pron i1gation FIP August 31, 1987
EPA proposed action 7 months from submittal
EPA final approval 14 months from
submittal of the SIP
The new schedule calls for EPA to propose FIP’s to remedy the
deficiencies by February 28, 1987, for all provisions in the visibility
regulations except for those addressing certified visibility impairment.
The EPA must pro ai1gate the FIP’s oy 6 months of the close of the.60—day
comment period (approximately October 31, 1987). The EPA will propose the
provisions related to visibility impairment by August 31, 1988, and will
promulgate these requirements approximately 8 months from proposal (April
1989). Because the settlement is designed to remedy existing deficiencies
in the SIP’s, the schedule set a June 1, 1986, deadline for the ELM’s to
certify the existence of visibility impairment to EPA. Any future visibility
impairment certifications will be addressed in the long-term strategy in
the FIP or SIP. Specifics on the long-term strategy are described later in
this memorandum.

-------
3
As in Part I of the settlement agreement, States are encouraged to
develop their own prograri . The States can avoid federally prorriilgated FIP’s
if they submit SIP’s by August 31, 1987. Some States have already developed
Part II SIP’s and wish to avoid confusion resulting from a FIP proposal. If
EPA received Part II SIP revisions by October 31, 1986, it will not propose
FIP’s for these States. Rather, EPA will review the submittal according to
the SIP processing requirements described later in this memorandum.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
If States are to meet the August 31, 1987, SIP submittal deadline,
they need to begin SIP development efforts soon. The regulatory requirements
are outlined below and more specific information regarding the SIP subrnittals
follows.
The purpose of the visibility regulations as stated in 40 CFR 51.300 is
to require States to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of
preventing any future and remedying any existing impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air
pollution. The visibility regulations require the States to:
1. Require control of impairment that can be traced to a single existing
stationary facility or small group of stationary facilities,
2. Evaluate and control new sources to prevent future impairment, and
3. Adopt strategies for monitoring and long—term planning to make
reasonable progress toward the national goal.
Implementation Control Strategies——Section 51.302
Section 51.302(a), Plan Revision Procedures, are straightforward
procedures for SIP adoption with the only exception being an FLM notification
procedure as stated in 51.302(a)(2)(ii). Section 51.302(b) which describes
the State and FLM coordination, requires the State to provide the FLM’s a
name of the contact person to which the FLM’s can submit recommendations on
the SIP. The State nbst also allow the FLM’s the opportunity to identify
any existing inpai rment and integral vistas and elements to be included in
the monitoring strategy. The State must provide the opportunity for the
FLM’s to meet in person and allow the FLM’s to discuss their assessment of
visibility impairment and recommendations on the development of the long-
term strategy. The visibility SIP must also provide procedures for the
continuing consultation between the State and FLMs on the visibility
protection program. Since the State/FLt4 coordination procedures are a critical
and nonroutine action which States must perform for SIP approval, Regions
should promptly provide the attached FLM contact list to help assure clear
comrTunications channels are established.
The general plan requirements of section 51.302(c) requtre the SIP to:
1. Recognize that he FLM’s may, at any time, certify that impairment
exists;

-------
4
2. Contain a long-term strategy (10—15 years) for making reasonable
progress toward the national goal;
3. Contain an assessment of visibility impairment and a discussion of
how each element of the plan relates to the national goal; and
4. Contain emission limitations or other control measures as represented
by best available retrofit technology (BART).
In cases where at least 6 months before SIP submission the FLM’s have
certified that impairment has occurred in a Class I area, the State must
identify and analyze for BART each stationary facility where the State can
“reasonably attribute” that impairment to the facility. The EPA document,
“Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit Technology for Coal Fired
Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary Facilities” (EPA 450/3—800-09b),
should be used for this analysis.
Exemptions from BART--Section 51.303
Major stationary facilities are given the opportunity to avoid emission
limitations as represented by BART if they can demonstrate to the Administrator
that the emissions from that source do not cause significant impairment of
visibility in a Class I area. The State and FLIA’s must concur with the
determination before the Administrator grants the exemption. We will develop
further guidance on these exemptions, if needed, in the future.
Identification of Integral Vistas——Section 51.304
The FLM’s were given the opportunity to declare integral vistas on or
before December 31, 1985. The Roosevelt Campobel b International Park_
Commission (RCIPC) was the only FLM to declare integral vistas. Therefore,
only the State of Maine is required to protect integral vistas from visibility
impairment caused by new or existing sources. Other States, as have the
States of Washington and Alaska, may declare and protect integral vistas at
their own discretion. Although the Department of the Interior (001)
declined to name vistas, 001 stated that the States have the authority to
protect vistas. The National Park Service has expressed willingness to
assist any State that wishes to list vistas.
Long-Term Strategy——Section 51.306
The long—term strategy is a 10—15 year plan for making reasonable
progress toward the national goal. The long—term strategy nijst cover any
existing impairment and any integral vista that the FLM’s have declared at
least 6 months before plan submission. A long-term strategy must be developed
which covers each Class I area within the State and each Class I area in
another State that may be impacted by sources within the State. The strategy
must be coordinated with existing plans and goals for a Class I area including
those of the FLM’s. (A single comprehensive plan is not precluded.) The
strategy must state wlth reasonable specificity why it is adequate for
making reasonable progress toward the national goal. The long—term strategy

-------
5
and SIP n jst provide for the review of the impact of new sources as required
by sections 51.307 and Subpart I (formerly sections 51.24 and 51.18). The
State ni st consider as a minimum the following six factors in the long—term
strategy:
1. Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs,
2. Additional emission limitations and schedules for compliance,
3. Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities,
4. Source retirement and replacement schedules,
5. Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management
purposes including such plans as currently exist within the State
for these purposes, and
6. Enforceability of emission limitations and control measures.
The SIP mist include a statement as to why these factors were or were not
considered in developing the long-term strategy.
The State nust commit to periodic review of the SIP on a schedule
not less than every 3 years. A periodic report must be developed in
consultation with the FLM’s and must contain the following:
1. Progress achieved in remedying existing impairment;
2. The ability of the long-term strategy to achieve reasonable progress
toward the national goal;
3. Any change in visibility conditions since the last report or since
plan approval;
4. Additional measures, including the need for SIP revisions, that
may be necessary to achieve progress toward the national goal
5. The progress achieved in implementing BART and meeting other schedules
laid out in the long—term strategy;
6e The impact of any exemption granted under 51.303; and
7. The need for BART to remedy existing impairment in an integral vista
declared since plan approval.
Monitoring Strategy and NSR Procedures——Sections 51.305 and 307
The visibility monitoring and NSR requirements have been outlined in
memoranda dated June 20, 1984; September 24, 1984; and March 25, 1985; and
also in Federal Register notices 49 FR 42670 and 50 FR 8544 (dated
October 23, 1984; and July 12, 1985, respectively). States without approved
Part I plans should be encouraged to develop them at this time.

-------
6
VISIBILITY SIP SUBMITTALS
General Plan Requirements
The regulations can be divided into general requirements which all
SIP’s must contain and more specific requirements for States (or Class I
areas) to address visibility impairment. Most requirements can be met in
narrative discussions and should not require lengthy regulatory development.
Each SIP must contain as a minimum:
1. Evidence of consultation with the FLM’s;
2. A discussion of whether visibility impairment certified by a FLM
can be reasonably attributed 0 to specific sources;
3. A discussion whether control measures are necessary, effective, and
enforceable in remedying the impairment and preventing future
impai rrnent;
4. A discussion of which data and control programs were considered in
making the decisions above; and
5. A commitment to a perodic review and revision of the visibility SIP,
which includes a report to the public and to EPA.
If the State finds that visibility impairment is attributable to certain
sources, the State is required as a minimum to carry out the following:
1. Analyze for BART each major stationary facility that causes or
contributes to that impairment.
2. Consider controls on each minor facility or nontraditional source,
and
3. Adopt emission limitations representing BART or other appropriate
control measures.
The State is allowed to consider economic factors in assessing the need for
alternate control strategies. However, the SIP must nevertheless demonstrate
reasonable progress toward the national goal.
FLM Certification of Impairment
The EPA began NP development by formally requesting the ELM’s to
identify visibility impairment and integral vistas in April 1985. The
FLM’s responded in late 1985 and early 1986. My staff has already sent
copies of all material relevant to the certification of impairment for the
States in your Region. This information should be transmitted to the
States if you have not already done so, Because EPA expects the States
to address this certification, I will briefly summarize it here.

-------
7
The DO! has certified that visibility impairment from uniform haze
exists in all mandatory Class I Federal areas in the lower 48 United States.
In addition, the DOl has identified 8 Class I areas where emissions from
specific sources may be causing or contributing to visibility impairment in
the Class I area. The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (ES),
initially identified 14 Class I areas where they had reason to believe that
local sources were causing visibility impairment in the Class I areas. The
ES has since notified EPA that this determination was preliminary and
should not be considered a certification under section 51.302(c)(1). The
RCIPC informed EPA that visibility impairment exists from both natural and
manmade sources. Although the RCIPC attributes the manmade impairment to
regional sources, there may be some local sources which are contributing to
the impairment.
In the January 23 notice, EPA cited deficiencies relating to impairment
in the SIP’s of 19 States. After further evaluation of the data supplied
by the FLM’s, EPA believes only six States (Maine, New Jersey, South Carolina,
Minnesota, Arizona, and Utah) may be required to address impairment.
Although the EPA has set a June 1, 1986, cutoff date for the ELM’s to
certify impairment for initial VIP development, the regulations require the
States to address visibility impairment which has been dentified at least
6 months prior to SIP submission. Therefore, the ELM’s may identify
visibility impairment directly to the States during the SiP development
process and this impairment n .ist then be addressed in the SIP’s.
Assessment of Visibility Impairment
Each SIP must contain an assessment of visibility impairment which
addresses the identified impairment. Each State is expected to make a
reasonable effort to determine if emissions from any local sources can be
“reasonably attributed to cause or contribute to the visibility impairment.”
The regulations define “reasonably attributable” as “by visual observation
or other technique the State deems appropriate.” Although the available
data on reasonably attributable visibility impairment may be limited, the
States are expected to consider all available data including the following:
1. Data supplied by the FLM’s;
2. The number of sources (major sources, minor sources, and nontraditional
sources) that have the potential to impact the visibility in Class I
areas;
3. The emissions and the control measures on the sources;
4. The prevailing meteorology near the Class I area; and
5. Any modeling which may have been done for other air quality programs
such as for new source permitting.

-------
8
The State may also consider modeling the impact of nearby sources by the
existing visibility models. The States may also consider implementing a
special monitoring program to address specific problems in Class I areas.
If the State concludes that the impairment is attributable to specific
sources, the State irust evaluate control programs to remedy the impairment.
In cases where the source is ‘an existing stationary facility as defined in
section 51.301(e), the State must complete a BART analyses according to the
SARI guidelines. If the source is a minor source, or nontraditional source
such as smoke from prescribed fires, the State must consider whether
additional controls are necessary.
In many cases the visibility impairment is not well documented, and
the State will be unable to make a decision as to the type or sources of
visibility impairment. The SIP should contain a discussion of what data
the State considered and what measures the State is taking, if any, to
resolve this situation. If the State concludes that the Class I areas
within the State are not experiencing visibility impairment that can be
addressed under these regulations, the State n jst support that conclusion.
Long—Term Strateqy
Each SIP must contain a discussion of whether the six factors listed-in
section 51.306(e) are or are not required in the long-term strategy. This
discussion need not be lengthy but must address each of the six items. The
long—term strategy also requires each SIP to contain a commitment for
periodic review and revision of the SIP no less than every 3 years. The
State must prepare a report to the Administrator which contains a discussion
of the listed section 51.306(c). The State should commit to this by a
regulation or a letter from the Governor of the State. This part of the
SIP wil’ then be incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations ,
SIP PROCESSING
As was mentioned earlier, some States have or are about to submit Part I]
SIP’s to EPA for review. If EPA receives the submittals by October 31, 1986,
these States will not be part of the Federal proposal. The States can also
avoid the final Federal promulgation if they submit revisions by August 31,
1987. The States should have adequate time to develop a visibility SIP and
follow through with adoption procedures to meet this second deadline.
As in Part I, the Regional Offices are responsible for preparing the
proposed and final rulemaking notices on the SIP submittals. The proposed
actions must be published within 7 months of the SIP submittal (but no
later than March 31, 1988) and the final actions within 7 months of the
proposed action. These times are meant to reflect our 5-2 procesSing
schedule. If the Regional Office determines that a SIP revision is not
approvable, the rulemaking notice must contain the proposed disapproval and
proposed Federal remedies. The final rulemaking notice will then contain
the final disapproval and promulgation of the Federal remedies.

-------
.9
Although the settlement agreement has been revised to reflect more
reasonable processing times, the deadlines require EPA to approve SIP’s or
promulgate FIP’s on schedule. The Regional Offices and Headquarters will
need to give these actions priority status. We had some difficulty in
meeting the deadlines with parallel process Part I SIP’s. Therefore, we
are not encouraging parallel process SIP’s for these requirements because
of the short time available to change approaches on the SIP’s. If a State
fails to meet its schedule in a parallel process action, the EPA may not
have sufficient time to promulgate a FIP for the State in compliance with
the settlement schedule. We also had problems with receiving late notices
from the Regions. I remind the Regions that Headquarters needs 2 months
to review the SIP submittals, In order to facilitate processing of the
SIP’s, n ’ staff will be using a checklist in their review of the SIP’s to
ensure that the States and Regions have included the appropriate discussions.
I have attached a copy which may be distributed to your States.
I hope by providing timely guidance and emphasizing the importance of
these actions, we can avoid some of the problems we encountered in the Part I
actions. If you have any questions on the State or Federal actions under the
settlement, please contact Janet Metsa (FTS 629—5540) of b’ staff.
Attachments
cc: R. Campbell
bcc: J. Byrne (FS)
S. Farrell (EN-34l)
R. Fisher (FS)
G. Foote (LE-132A)
B. Mitchell (NPS)
B. Rolofson (FWS)
S. Worthington (PM—221)
OAQPS:CPDD:SIB:PPS:METSA#4 doc.8:Jhargrove:l0/24/86:RTP(MD- 15) :x5697.

-------
Attachment 2
51.300 Purpose
(a) Statement of national goal
(b) Listing of protected areas
51.301 Definitions
51.302(b) CoordinatiOn with FLM
(1) ConsultatiOn before SIP submittal
(2) Opportunity to meet
(3) Continuing consultation
5 1.302(c)
(1)
(2)
FLM may identify impairment
Assessment of visibility impairment
Discussion of SIP elements
Emission limitations
Schedules for con liance
(3) Require maintenance of control equipment
(4) BART analyses
51.304 Integral Vistas (not required)
51.305 Monitoring Strategy
(a) Evaluate visibility
(b) Consider available data
STATE:
CHECKLIST FOR VISIBILITY SIP’S
REVIEWER:
Comments

-------
Visibility Checklist Cont. Con nents
51.306 Long Term Strategy (10—15 year plan)
(a) Must address identified impairment ___________________
Each area nust be addressed ______________________
States why LTS adequate _____________________
(b) Coordinated with FLM _____________________
Cc) Periodic review and report to EPA (not less than 3 years)
(1) Progress toward national goal ____________________
(2) Ability of SIP to attain goal ___________________
(3) Change in visibility conditions _____________________
(4) Additional necessary measures _____________________
(5) Progress toward implementing BART ____________________
(6) Impact of any BART exemption ____________________
(7) Need for BART since SIP approval ____________________
(d) Review of in act of new sources (See 51.307)
(e)Consideration of the following:
(1) On-geing emission reductions ____________________
(2) Mditional emission reductions _____________________
(3) Construction activities _____________________
(4) Source retirement and replacement ____________________
(5) Smoke management techniques _____________________
(6) Enforceability of emission limitations____________________
(f) Discuss why factors were or were not considered _________________
(g) State considers economic factors in LTS ____________________
51.307 New Source Review
(a) FLM 30/60 day notification ____________________

-------
Visibility Checklist cont. Comments
Mvance notification
Consideration of FL1 analyses
(b) Nonattainment review ____________
Cc) Consistent with goal
Cd) Preapplication monitoring

-------
—5—
b. S124.19(b) is a review of the terms of the permit
by the Administrator under his own initiative.
Regional Offices informally request the Admini-
strator to take this action. They need not have
commented during the public comment period. The
Administrator has demonstrated a preference for
using S124.19(b) over Sl24.19(a ). In the four
instances thus far when he was given the choice
of acting under (a) or tb), he chose (b). Uowever,
the Administrator may not have sufficient time to
act within 30 days in every situation in the
future.
2. In the majority of situations, it is more appropriate
for the Agency to act as one body to initiate review
under S124.j9(b). In some instances, however, the
third party role for a Regional Office, through 40
C.F.R. Sl24.19(a) may be preferable. Regions should
pick (a) or (b). However, if both provisions are
legally available, they should request, in the
alternative, that the Administrator act under the
provision other than the one chosen by the Region
should he deem it more appropriate. In particular,
if a Region requests the Administrator to act under
S124.19(b), it should ask that its memorandum be
Considered as a petition for review under Sl24.19(a)
should review under S124.19(b) not be granted within
30 days. This is to protect the Regions’ right to
appeal a permit if the Administrator does not have
sufficient time to act. Therefore, all memoranda
requesting review should be written to withstand
public scrutiny if considered as petitions under
S124.] .9(a).
3. If the 30 day period for appeal has run and strong
equities in favor of enforcement exist, issue a S167
order and be prepared to file a civil action to
prohibit commencement of construction until the
Source secures a valid permit. (See Section IV B(2))
below.
B. For sources where COflSttUCtjOn has already commenced:
1. If the permit was issued less than 30 days previously
take action under 40 CFR S124.19.
2. If the permit was issued more than 30 days previously,
issue a S167 order requiring immediate cessation of
construction until a valid permit is obtained. ThLs

-------
—6—
step should only be taken if extremely strong equities
in favor of enforcement exist. Regions should be
keeping state and source informed of all informal
efforts to change permit terms before the S167 order
ia issued. Sl67 orders may be used both for sources
which have and have not commenced construction.
- However, because the S124.19 administrative appeal
and review process is available in delegated programs,
it is greatly preferred for challenging deficient
permits in states where it can be used.
3. If EPA determines that penalties are appropriate,
issue a NOV under Section l13(a)(l) of the Act for
commencement of construction of a major source or
major modification without a valid permit. This is
necessary because 5167 contains no penalty authority.
Note that strong equities for enforcement must exist
before taking this step. EPA can issue both a 5167
order requiring immediate injunctive relief and a
NOV if we decide that both are appropriate.
4. Follow up with judicial action under S167 and S113(b)(2)
if construction continues without a new permit.
C. Note that the appeal provisions of 40 C.P.R. 5124.19
apply to all delegated PSD programs even if S124.19
is not specifically referenced in the delegation.
V. Procedures to Follow When Enforcing Against Permits in
EPA—Approved State Programs (All NSR and More Than
Half of the PSD Programs )
A. Issue S113(a)(5) order (for NSR) or 167 order (for
PSD) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
30 days after the permit is issued, requiring the
source not to commence construction, or if already
started, to cease construction (on the basis that it
would be constructing with an invalid permit), and to
apply for a new permit. Note that EPA should issue
a 5167 order if it has determined that there is a
reasonable chance the source will comply. Otherwise,
the Region should move directly to section V.D below.
B. From the outset of EPA’S involvement, keep the
source informed of all EPA’S attempts to convince
the permitting agency to change the permit.
C. Issue an NOV (113(a)) as soon as construction commences
if EPA determines penalties are appropriate.

-------
—7—
D. If source does not comply with order, follow up with
judicial action under 5167, S113(b)(5), or, if NOV
ie8ued, S113(b)(2). If penalties are appropriate,
issue NOV and later amend complaint to add a S113
count when 30 day statutory waiting period has run
-- after initial action is filed under S167.
VI. For EPA—issued Permits (Non—delegated )
A. If source submitted inadequate information
(e.g., misleading, not identifying all options)
and EPA recently found out about it,
1. If within 30 days of permit issuance, request
review by the Administrator under 40 C.F.R.
S124.19(b).
2. If permit has been issued for more than 30 days,
issue S167 or S113(a)(5) order preventing start-
up or, if appropriate, immediate cessation of
construction.
3. Issue NOV if construction has commenced and EPA
determines penalties to be appropriate.
4. If necessary, request additional information from
source; if source cooperates, issue new permit.
5. Consider taking judicial action if appropriate.
EPA recognizes the distinction between permits based on
faulty and correct information only for EPA directly—issued
permits. This distinction is necessary for EPA permits due
to equitable considerations.
B. If source submitted adequate information and EPA
issued faulty permit, we should attempt to get source
to agree to necessary changes and accept modification
of its permit. However, if source will not agree,
only available options are revoking the permit and
enforcing. Consolidated permit regulations are
unclear about EPA’S authority to revoke PSD permits.
Because of this and the equitable problems associated
with enforcing against our own permits, unless new
information about health effects or other significant
findings is available, we may choose to accept the
permit. If faulty permit produces unacceptable
environmental risk, act under 40 C.F.R. S124.l9, if
possible. If action under 40 C.F.R. S124.19 not
possible, first revoke permit and then act as set
forth in Section IV.

-------
—8—
Add ressees:
Regional Counsels
Regions I—X
Regiona.l Counsel Air Contacts
Regions I—X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
PSD Contacts
Regions I—X
Alan Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Greg Foote, C CC
Gary McCutchen
NPPB, AQMD (MD—is)
Ron McCaiium
Chief Judicial Officer
Bob Van ifeuvelen
Environmental Enforcement Section
Department of Justice
David Buente, Chief
Environiental Enforcement Section
Departient of Justice

-------
Appendix
1. Request for Review under 40 C.F.R.S124.19
2. S167 Order
3. Sll3(a)-( ) finding of violation and accompanying S] .13(a)(l)
Notice of violation

-------
UMTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
nrr • qtwv REGION II
DATE: “s * 1 I I
Request for Administrator to Initiate Review of - -
SUBICT: PSD Permit for Cain en County Resource Recovery FaciLity
FROM:
TO: Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
I am requesting that, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 124.19, you
review the PST) portion of the air pollution permit issued
to Camden County Energy Recovery Associates for construction
of the Camden County Resource Recovery Facility in Camden,
New Jersey (CCRRF). The failure of the New Jersey State
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to include an
emission limit for PM 10 in the permit, to address BACT
adequately for PM 10 and to provide for public comment on PM 10
as a PSD affected pollutant are grounds for reviewing the DEP’s
actions in issuing the permit and for staying the effective-
ness of the permit until all PSD requirements have been
met. As explained below, if you agree that review of this
permit is appropriate, you will have to notify the perTnittee
by January 11, 1988, that you are initiating review of the
PSD portion of the permit.
This permit was issued under various authorities including
EPA’S PSI) permit authority, 40 C.F.R. 52.21, which is dele-
gated to DEP. Due to the promulgation of the new NAAQS for
PM 10 on July 1, 1987, the emissions of particulate matter
from the CCRRF became subject to the PSD rules. Particulate
matter was not previously subject to PSD because the area
was classified as nonattainment for the now withdrawn NAAQS
for total suspended particulate (TSP). My staff has
concluded that the permit and the permit review procedures
do not adequately address PM 10 under the applicable PSD
regulations.
DEP was aware several months before it issued the permit
that the new PM 10 NAAQS for particulate matter would require
PSD review. Nevertheless, the permit does not include an
emission limitation for particulate matter expressed as
PM 10 emissions fr the facility. Also, the analysis of the
control technology fails to demonstrate that the system
selected would provide the best degree of emission control
currently available for PM 10 particulates. Finally, there is
a procedural problem with the permit as well. DEP did not
provide notice and an opportunity for the public to comment
on the PM 10 aspect of the permit, contrary to the regulatory
requirements and the express advice of Region II.
RM 1320-1 (9186)

-------
—2—
The Delegation of PSD Authority to DEP
EPA Region II delegated PSD new source review authority to
DEP pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 52.21(u). The PSD permitting
authority delegated to the DEP 18 not restricted in any
way. The.delegatloa is general in nature and includes all
PSD requirements as they are from time to time revised by
rulemaking.
Applicability of PMiô Requirements to CCRRF Permit
The application for the CCRRP air pollution control permit
was submitted on April 30 1986. The DEP required the
application to be augmented until the application was
considered complete and the DEP noticed the permits for
public comment on April 28, 1987. A publi’ hearing was
held on May 28, 1987, in Camden, New Jersey, and the public
comment period ended on June 12 1987.
PSD requirements are applicable to this permit for particulate
matter because it is not in the class of permits and permit
applications that are covered by the grandfatherjng exemptions
of the PM 10 promulgation. No PSD application addressing partic- .
ulate matter was submitted for the CCRRF before July 31. 1987.
At the time of the notice period, the facility was required
to undergo preconstruction review under the SIP for TSP
because the area was nonattainment (secondary) for TSP but
Federal and State permits were not issued until December 7,
1987. Only sources with PSD applications for particulate
matter or with all Federal and State preconstruction approvals
or permits before July 31, 1987, are exempt from PSD review
for PM 10 . Sees 40 C.P.R S 2 .21(c)(4)(j ) and (x) (52 Fed.
Reg . 24714, July 1, 1987).
We reminded the DEP, both orally and in writing, of the need
to satisfy the PSD requirements at 40 CIIF.R. 52.21 for
sources of particulate matter as a result of the PM 10 pro-
mulgation. The DEP wag informed that the CCRRF was not
grandfather and required additional PSD review to account
for PM 10 .
BACT Emission Limit Necessary for PM 1
The permit has no emission limitation for PM 10 . BACT is. by
definition, an emissions limitation rather than merely specified
types of equipment. 40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(l2). (The only exception
is when there are technological or economic limitations on the
application of measurement methodology.) Clearly the grand—
fathering provisions were meant to limit the class-of major new
sources for which the particulate emission limit is expressed

-------
—3—
as TSP under the Clean Air Act. Without an express limit
on PM 10 as a permit condition, we are concerned that there
will be no sufficiently stringent 1 enforceable limit on
particulate matter for this facility.
Even if the difference between the actual rate of particulate
matter emissions smaller than 10 microns in size occuring as
a result of the TSP limit now in the permit and the PM 10
limit tbatshould be in the permit proves to be small or
nonexistent, failing to correct this permit will leave a
muddled and uncertain basis for future enforcement. EPA
regulations clearly require that particulate matter emissions
be addressed under the PSD regulations for this permit and
that an emission limit be expressed in terms of P 1 4 10 .
Region II is concerned that a TSP emission limit in an instance
where PM 10 was the PSD regulated pollutant may be unenforceable
especially in light of EPA ’s conclusion that the NAAQS which
triggers PSD for particulate matter in the case of CCRRF’s
permit is the new PM 10 NAAQS. See . 52 Fed. Reg. 24694.
The State BACT Analysis
The DEP’S Hearing Officer found that there is no predictable
difference between a baghouse and an electrostatic precipitator
(ESP) with respect to PM 10 collection efficiency and, there-
fore, concluded that the ESP determined adequate for TSP is
also adequate as BACT for PM 10 . Region II considers the
BACT analysis by which the DEP reached its conclusion to be
unacceptably thin in its review of available data. The
only analysis which appears to be available is in a report
submitted by letter from the permittee dated November 16,
1987, responding to a November 2, 1987, request from DEP.
Our review of the BACT analysis shows that it is incomplete
and an inadequate basis for making necessary technical
judgments. Some questions are sO fundamental that we
cannot make meaningful technical comments. For example:
1. What are the sources of the engineering
and economic data?
2. Why is there no comparison of the particulate
size and garbage characteristics at the
cited facilities and what is anticipated
at CCRRF?
3. What were the test metbods employed in
obtaining the emissions data from the
cited fai]i,ties? -
4. Why were three United States facilities
referenced but not considered in the
analysis? ‘ -

-------
—4—
5. Was the removal efficiency data based on
a. system comparable to CCRRF’ which
includes a dry scrubber before the
- - electrostatic precipitator or baghouse?
These are just some of the questions that we have and which
we would normally review with a PSD permit applicant before
public comments are solicited, With the date of the submission
being November 16. 1987, and the permit issuance date being
December 7, 1987, we do not believe that any meaningful
questioning of the permittee’s analysis was done by the
DEP. The mere three weeks between the submission of the
report and permit issuance did not allow the Region a
meaningful opportunity to resolve EPA concerns.
Public Comment on PMi PSD Review
In early November, 1987, DEP informed Region II that it had
completed the necessary PSD analysis for PM 10 but needed to
issue the permit with little or no time for a public comment
period with respect to PM 10 because of an impending financing
deadline. On the basis of DEP assurances that PM 10 had
been adequately addressed, Region II staff suggested to DEP
staff that DEP might be able to justify a shortened public
comment period, but emphasized that an opportunity for
public comment to review the PU 10 analysis was necessary.
(EPA’S 0CC and OAQPS orally concurred with Region Ii’s pos-
ition.) DEP acknowledged the need for public comment and
agreed to o11ow appropriate, but shortened, procedures.
Region II received a copy of and began to review the
permittee’s November 16, 1987, submission. With no notice
for public cor ment and no further notice to EPA, DEP issued
the air permits to CCRRF along with SPDES and solid waste
permits on December 7, 1987.
Region II’s advice with respect to the comment period
assumed adequate trea ent of PM 10 under PSD requirements.
Raving subsequently reviewed the BACT analysis and the
permit itself, we now believe that these do not meet the
requiremente of PSD and any reason to allow less than 30
days for public comment on the PM 10 analysis would be
unjustified.
Recommendation
I am asking that you initiate review of the CCRRF permit
with respect to compliance with PSD review procedures
applicable to PM 10 . Specifically, the review should address:
1. The failu,re to include BACT expressed as a PM 10
emission limit in the permit,

-------
—5—
2. The adequacy of the review of available technology
in establishing BACT.
3. The failure to provide for public comment regarding
the PM limitations.
A December 1, 1987, memorandum from Craig Potter, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, calls for regional offices
to monitor state compliance with preconstruction reviews to
prevent instances such as this. We have done so in this case
but were not consulted by the DEP when it decided to reject
EPA’s direction and issue the permit. We expect that the DEP
and the permittee will correct this action rather than go
through the entire review process but the issuance o.f the
permit leaves us with no choice but to seek to commence review
to prevent the action taken by DEP from becoming final action.
We are prepared to continue working with the DEP to act on the
permit expeditiously should the DEP and the permittee agree to
remedy the deficiencies discussed above. We have also explained
to the DEP that, if appropriate, Region II could request a stay
of EPA’s permit review proceedings in the interim. In this
regard, the DSP has contacted Region II and is exploring ways
to take valid legal action on their own which would eliminate
the need for you to act on this request for review by January 11.
If the DEP should take such action, we will notify you immedir
I request that you alert me before you issue an order under
S124. 19(c).
Procedures and Time Limitations
We are concerned that review procedures be initiated within
the time period allowed by the regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 124,
60 that we are not foreclosed from raising these important
issues. Under S124.19(a), if this is construed as a petition
for review, the petition must be filed within 30 days of service
of the notice by the DSP of its final permit decision and the
Administrator must issue an order granting the review within a
reasonable time. Sj24.19(c). If for any reason you determine
that S124.19(a) is not the proper procedure, we would request
you to initiate review on your own initiative under $124.19(b),
which appears to require you to act within the initial 30 days.
Based on the issuance of the permit on December 7, 1987, we
calculate that the 30 day period from the issuance of the
permit will end on January 11, 1988. Pursuant to S124.20(a),
the time began to run on the day after permit issuance. Since
service of the DEP notice was by mail, we have added three days
to the prescrthed time in accordance with S124.20(d). The
thirty—third day after December 7, 1987, is January 9. 1988,
which is a Saturday, and S124.20(c) provides that the time
period is extended to the next working day which is Monday.
January 11, 1988 .. If this is construed as a review on your

-------
—6 —
own initittive, notice must be given by this date and we recommend
that nctice granting review in either case be provided by
January 11. 1988.
The regional Office filed comments on the draft permit
within tbe DEP’s public comment period. See , Hearing
Officer’s Report, December 7, 1987, Appendix B. We construe
the definition of person in Si24.41 to include an EPA
regional office. Therefore the Region, as a person who filed
comments, is a proper party to file a petition for review under
S124. 19(a).
By whichever means revie, is initiated, the review procedure
is intended to prevent raising facts or issues on appeal that
were not raised in the public comment period. See , 45 Fed.
Reg . 33411, Col. 3 (May 19, 1980). Section 124.19(a) requires
a statement that the issues being raised for review were raised
during the comment period to the extent required by Part 124.
A person’s obligation is to “raise all reasonably ascertajn
able issues and submit all- reasonably available arguments
by the close of the public comment period.” S124.13.
The issues raised herein were not required to be raised earlier
since these issues could not have been known at the time the
comment period closed on June 12, 1987. Indeed, we had advised
the DEP that a public comment period should be provided so that
public comments could be received on the PM 10 permit decision.
Notice of the initiation of the review procedures should be
sent to:
Mr. Robert Donahue
President
Camden County Energy Recovery Associates
110 South Orange Avenue
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
Mr. Richard T. Dewling
Commi ssioner
New Jersey State Department of
Envjro nta1 Protection
401 East State Street
CN—027
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Mr. Gary Pierce
Chief
Bureau of Engineering and
Regulatory Development
Division of Environmental Quality
New Jersey State Department of
Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
CN -0 27
Trenton, New, Jersey 08625

-------
—7—
Enclosed are, copies of the following documents upon which this
request is based:
1. PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OR ALTER
CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT AND TEMPORARY
- CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE CONTROL APPARATUS OR EQUIPMENT
AND PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION PERMIT
December 7, 1987
2. HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT FOR THE
APPLICATION BY CAMDEN COUNTY ENERGY RECOVERY ASSOCIATES
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE
A SOLID WASTE RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
December 7, 1987
3. Letter from Robert F. Donahue, President, Camden
County Energy Recovery Associates to Jorge H.
Berkowitz, New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection, Subject: Camden County Resource Recovery
Facility PM 10 BACT Analysis, with enclosure
November 16, 1987
Enclosures (3)
cc: Thomas L. Adams, LE—133
Francis S. Blake, LE—130
J. Craig Potter, ANR—443
Ronald L. McCallum, A—1O1

-------
UNITED STATES CNVIRONMCNTAL PROTECTION AGFNCY
Rr.CtON IV
In the matter o )
)
L KC COUNTY ‘1ASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY
Order
OKAHUMPKA, FLORIDA 3
PROCEEDtM S UNDER )
SECTION 167 OF THE CLEAN )
AIR ACT, AS AMENnED, 42 U.S.C. S7477
AflPIINISTRATIVF ORDER
This Administrative Order is issued this date by the
Regional Administrator, Region IV , United States Erivironnental
Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to S ’ction 167 of the Clean
Air ct (the Act), 42 U.S.C. S7477.
FINflING OF FACT
1. The NRC/Recovery Group, Inc., proposes to construct and
onerate a Lake County Waste to fnerqy Facility (Lake County)
in Okahurr pka, Lake County, Florida. The Lake County facility
will consist of two mass burn incinerators which will each
incinerate approximately 2S(3 tons per day of municipal solid
waste. The se incinerators will be fueled wjth comhjnation
of municipal solid waste and wood chips. These incinerators
‘.iill emit particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02) , nitro 1eri
oxides, carbon non xide, volatile oroanic cor’ pounds, lead,
beryl1iu , fluoride, sulfuric acid mist, riercury, dioxins,

-------
—2—
dibenzoturans, and hydrogen chloride. All ot iI . Lc
mentioned pollutants are regulated by the Act xCep J1OXIflS,
dibenzoturans, and hydrogen chloride.
2. The area ot construction of the Lake t :i y Waste to
Energy Facility is located in an attainmer.t ured :!or all
pollutants regulated by the Act. (40 Code ot Federal Regulations
(C.F.R.) 581.310] The facility is considered a major stationary
source Decause its potential emissions (which are subject
to regulations under the Act) art above the Prevention of
SigniLicant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality threshold
level. Consequently, this facility is regulated under the
P$D rules and regulations.
3. On March 11, 1986, the NRC/Recovery Group applied to
the ‘loriaa Department ot Environmental Regulation (DER) or
a PSU permit to construct and operate two 250 tons per aay
municipal solid waste energy recovery units at its Lake County
racility located on Jim Roc.ers Road in Okahumpka, Florida,
pursuant to the Florica State Implementation Plan (SIP)
[ Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 17—2.500 et ___
4. On May 20, 1986, in response to said PSD application,
the Florida DER issued a Preliminary Determination which
contained, in the State’s judgment, the Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) for the proposed incinerators.
The BACT Determination contained emission limits for all
applicable pollutants regu1at d by the Act and contemplated
that a Daghouse (to control particulates) in comblnatiOfl

-------
—3—
with a scrubber (to control acid gases) constituted GACT.
5. On July 2, 1986. CPA notified the Florida DER that
the SO 2 emission limit contained in the Florida DER 8. CT
Determination may not adequately reflect BACT (i.e., pro scd
S02 emission limit not sufficiently stringent) and that the BACT
Determination should also consider the effect of controlling
S02 on unregulated pollutants such as hydrogen chloride and
dioxin. Furthermore, EPA informed DER that it was EPA policy
that the control of nonregulated air pollutants may be
considered in ir posing a more stringent RACT limit on regulated
pollutants, if there is a reduction in the nonregulated air
pollutants which can be directly attributed to the control
device selected for the abatement of the regulated Dollutants.
6. On August 15, 1986. OCR issued a second PSD Preliminary
Deterrninaeiort with a modified BACT Determination. The modified
BACT Determination no longer contained the requirement for acid
gas controls, but only requ’ired that the applicant leave
space for t.he acid gas control equipment in the event there
would be a future state rule change for resource recovery
facilities. Removal of the requirement to employ acid gas
control meant the modified BACT Determination could not
adequately address EPA’S concern about a more stringent SO 2
emission limit.
7. On September 19, 1986, EPA notified OCR that EPk wa
not persuaded by Lake Countys contention that municipal
solid waste incineration with acid qas control is not

-------
—4—
economically feasible.
8. On September 24, 1986, the Florida DER issued its
Final Determination and PSD permit to the NRG/Recovery Group
for the proposed Lake County facility. The Final Determination
and State PSD permit did not require the installation of acid
gas control.
9. On October 23, 1986, EPA notified the Florida DER
that EPA did not concur with DER’s Final Determination
regarding the issue of ACT. EPA recommended that the Final
Determination and the Florida DER nermit be reissued with a
BACT Determination which reflects state—of—the—art technology
(acid gas control and more stringent emission limitations
for particulate matter and SO 2 ).
10. On January 30, 1987, EPA—Region IV prepared an
independent BACT analysis, which varied from DER’s Final
Deternination, in that it contained “tore stringent emission
limitations for particulate ,.matter and S02 (achieved through
the use of hiQh efficiency particulate emission and acid
gas controls).
11. On February 11, 1987, EPA notified Florida DER that
the DER PSD permit issued to the NRC/Recovery Group for the
Lake County facility on September 24, 1986, was deficient and
that EPA may initiate appropriate enforcement action against
the Lake County facility to prevent or delay the construction
o the facility.
12. On February 11, 1987, EP notified the NRG/Recovery

-------
—5-.
Group that the Florida OCR PSD permit was deticient and that
unless the DER PSD permit was modified to reflect wr at EPA
Considers SACT, EPA may initiate appropriate enforcement
action to prevent or delay the construction of the tacility.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Administrator of the EPA pursuant to his authority
un er S cticn 109 ot the Act, 42 U.s.c. 57409, promulgated
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standarcis
(NAAQS) for certain criteria pollutants, including total suspended
particulate matter, sulfur oxides (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxiae, ozone, and lead. (40 C.F.R. SS5U.4 — 50.12)
2. Pursuant to Section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410,
the Acministrator of EPA, in 45 Federal ! ister 52 76
(August 7, 1980), pror u1gaced amended regulations for PSD
in areas where the existing air quality is better than
saia ambient st ndarcjs and ncorporatec said regulations
into the various implementation plans or each state. The
relevant regulations are coditieø at 40 C.F.R. 551.24.
3. The Florida SIP contains federally approved PSD
regulations, based on the above—referenced so regulations,
tor such attainemer 1 t or mclean airw areas. (F.A.C. Rule
17—2.500)
4. The area ot construction for the Lake County Waste to
n rgy tacility is an attainment area tor NA.AQS tor all
pollutants. (4Q C.F.R. §81.31u)

-------
—6—
5. NRC/Recovery Group is the owner and operator or the
major emitting resource recovery facility in Lake County,
Florida, and proposes to construct at that site pursuant
to the PSD permit issued to the Lake County Waste to
Energy facility by Florida DER on September 24, 1986.
6. EPA tinds the Florida DER PSD permit issued to
the Lake County Waste to Energy facility to be deficient
in that it tails to require the installation of acid
gas control. The Florida DEk PSD perr ut also fails to
require more stringent emission limitations tor particu-
late matter and SO 2 . lhese deticiencies invalidate the
State—issued PSD permit.
7. The construction ot the Lake County Waste to
Energy tacility pursuant to an invalid permit will violate
Section 165(a) or the Act.. 42 U.S.C. 7475(a), and 40 C.F.R.
§51.24. Consequently, the issuance of this order, pursuant
to Section 167 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 57477, is required
to prevent such construction.
8. The authority ot the Administrator ot EPA pursuant
to S113(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 57413(a), to make findings
of violation of the Florida SIP, to issue notices of violation
and to conter with the alleged violator has been delegated,
first, to the Regional Administrator [ earlier deleg ation
consolidatea to Delegations Manual, No. 7—6 (J .ily 25, 1984)]
and second, to the Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
Management Division, Region IV (earlier delegation consolicatec

-------
—7—
in Region IV Delegation Manual, o. 4—2 (March 15, 1985)].
9. The authority of the Administrator ot EPA to issue
orders pursuant to Section 167 of the Act, 42 U.S.c. 7477,
was delegated to the Regional Administrator (earlier delegation
Consolidated to Delegations Manual, No. 7—38 (July 25, 1984)1.
The Regional Administrator, Region Iv, has also consulted
with the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air and the Director
of the Stationary Source Compliance Division pursuant to
delegation requ1remen .
ORDER
Consequently, based upon investigation and analysis of
all relevant tacts, including any good taith ettorts to
comply, and pursuant to Section 167 ot the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. §7477, the NRG/Recovery Group, Inc. (Lake County
ast to Energy facility), is htreby ORDERED:
1. ettectjve immediately upon receipt at this Order,
not to corarnence any on—site Construction activity o a
permanent nature on its two 25u tons per day :nunicipaj solia
waste energy recovery units, including, but not limited to,
installation of building supports and foundations, paving,
laying of underground pipe, construction of permanent Storage
structures and activities ot a similar nature.
2. not to commence any on—site construction activity
until it has received a Prevention at Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit and Final Determination that incorporates all

-------
—8—
t.r. requirements for PSD pursuant to aria in accorcance with
he provisxons ot Part C, Subpart 1 ot the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 J.S.C. 747Q et. the regulations promulgated
thereunder at 40 C.F.R. SS1.24 and/or the regulations of the
federally enforceable Florida State Implementation Plan, Rule
17—2.500 of the Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 403
ot the Florida Statutes including EPA’S Best Available Control
S
Technology analysis, dated January 30, 1987 (which addresses
acia gas control and more stringent emission limitations tor
suirur cioxide and particulate matter), and:
3. to submit, no later than ten (10) days atter receipt
ot this Order, certitication that the prohibition in paragraph
one (1) ot this Order has been observed aria will contLr ue to
be obst r ed until the permit referenced in paragraph two
(2) or this Orcer has been issued. Such certirication
snail he suurnitted to;
Winston A. Smith, DLrector
Air, Pesticides, ana Toxics
Management Division
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347—3043
JUN 3 1987 —,, _ ..... .
Date Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator

-------
UNITED STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
IN REGARDING:
)
Indiana De.p.rtment of Environmental ) FINDING OF VIOLATION
Management ) EPA-5-86—A-50
St. Joseph County Health )
Department )
Air Pollution, Permit to Operate )
Dated February 6, 1986, to )
A.M. General Coporatlon )
)
A PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO )
SECTION 113(a)(S) OF THE )
CLEAN AIR ACT, AS AMENDED )
( 42 U.S.C. Section 7413 (a))
I NIRODUCT IO U
On February 6, 1986, the St. Joseph County Health Department, as
duly authorized delegate of the State of Indiana, lssu d a permit to
operate several air pollution sources operated by AM General Corporation
located at 13200 McKinley, Mishawaka, Indiana.
FINDING OF VIOLATION
For reasons set forth below, the Administrator finds that the permit
to operate, issued by the St. Joseph County Health Department on February 6,
1986, to AM General Corporation, (AMG) failed to comply with the requirements
of Indiana Air Pollution Control Regulation APC-19 Section 4 and R that the
St. Joseph County Health Department, as duly authorized delegate of the
State of Indiana, did not act In compliance with those requirements.
The permit to operate issued by St. Joseph County Health Department on
February 6, 1986, to AM General Corporation increased the Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) emissions from 197.3 tons per year to 377.0 tons per year.
This VOC emission increas. of 179.7 tons per year allowed toAMG, subjects
the facility to Regulat:on APC—19.

-------
2
1 egulat1on APC-19’Sectlon 4 b(4) requires any person proposing the -
construction, modification or reconstruction of a major facility which will
Impact on the air quality of a nonattainment area or which will be located
In a nonattainment area, shall comply with the requirement of Section 8 of
this regulation, as applicable.
Regulation APC-19 Section 8 requires the same person to demonstrate
along with other requirements:
(1) Increased emissions of the pollutant are to be offset and
are equal to 90 percent or less of the offsetting emissions.
(2) Application of emissions limitation devices or techniques
such that the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) for
the pollutant will be achieved.
This document serves as notification that the Administrator, by duly
delegated authority, has made a finding under Section 113(a)(5) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C 47413(a)(S), and is served on both the State
of Indiana and its delegate, the St. Joseph County Health Department, as
wefl as AM General Corporation to provide an opportunity to confer with
the Adm nstratOr pr or to 1n tiat1on of a civil action pursuant to Section
113(b)(5). By offering the opportunity for such a conference or participating
in one, the Administrator does not waive his right to comence a civil action
irinediately under Section 113(b).
oat e: __________________________
David Kee, flir’ector
Air Management flivislon

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
In the M ttIf of:
AM GENERAL CORPORATION ) NOTICE OF VIOLATION
MISKAWAKA,.1NDIANA ) EPA-5-86-A-49
)
Proceedings Pursuant to )
Section 113(a)(1) of the )
Clean Air Act, as amended )
(42 U.S.C. Section 7413(a)(l.)] )
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
This Notice of Violation Is 1ssu ed pursuant to Section 113(a)(1) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. Section 7413(a)(1)); ‘iereafter
referred to as the Act.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
The Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA), by authority duly delegated to the undersigned, finds:
1. Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (IAPC8) Regulation
APC—19 dealing with °ermlts, PSO, Emission Offsets, Is
part of the applicable implementation plan for the State
of Indiana approved by U.S. EPA on February 16, 1982,
at 47 Federal Register 6621 and establish operating and
COnstruction permit requirements pertaining to AM General
Corporation’s facility located at 13200 McKinley Highway,
Mishawaka, Indiana.
2. As Indicated more specifically below:
AM General Corporation (AMG) operates a miscellaneous metal’ part
coating facility in Mishawaka, Indiana which is In violation
of IAPCB regulation APC—19 as given below:
(a) On February 6, 1986 AM General Corporation was Issued a
permit to operate, by St. Joseph County Health Department.
This prmit to operate allows AMG, to Increase Its volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emissions from 197.3 tons per year
to 377 tons per year. This VOC emission increase of 179.7
tons per year allowed to AMG subject the facility to IAPCR
regulat on APC-19.
(b) This per ’1 t to operate issued to AMG, failed to comply
with t,n re ,j:rements of IAPCB regulation APC—19, SectIon
4 and

-------
2
(1) the applicant did not apply emission limitation
devices or techniques Such that the Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) for VOC was
not achieved.
(ii) the Increased VOC emissions were not offset by
a reduction In VOC emission by existing facilities.
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
The Administrator of the U.S. EPA, by authority duly delegated to the under-
signed, notifies the State of Indiana and the AN (eneral Corporation, that
the facility described above Is In violation of the applicable Implementation
plan as set forth In the Finding of Violation.
DATE JUN 19 . IIIII ? .,/’ 2 ’
David Kee, flirector
Air Management Division

-------
PM 167-88-03-29-002
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460
‘1
f _ ,- -
— s—-
“AR 29 (988
t ’ RIF itas3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Opinion in U.S. V. Louisiana—Pacific Corporation , Civil
Action No. 86—A—1880 (D. Colorado, March 22, 1988)
FROM: Michael S. Alushin / /l ’ ,ç .4 ._
Associate Enforcement Couk’sel /
Air Enforcement Division
TO Thomas L. Adams, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
3. Cra .g Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
On March 22, Judge Alfred A. Arraj of the District of Colorado
issued his opinion in this case which was tried in Denver between
January 19—26, 1988. EPA had brought an enforcement action
against Louisiana—Pacific Corporation (LPC) for violations of the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations under
the Clean Air Act. The violations occurred when LPC constructed
two waferboard plants in Kremmling and Olathe, Colorado without
first obtaining PSD permits. Judge Arraj found that EPA had not
met its burden of proving that the 01.athe plant was subject to
PSD requirements, but held that LPC had violated PSD regulations
at the Kremmling plant. Judge Arraj did not find that LPC had
received an economic benefit from its violation, however, and
assessed a civil penalty of $65,000. This is the first enforcement
case for PSD v .olations exclusively to go to trial.
Discussion
Although the amount of the civil penalty awarded by Judge
Arraj is modest, his opinion contains good law for EPA. The
adverse holdings were based on narrow issues of fact and cannot
act as precedent for future litigation. The important legal
issues discussed include the proper implementation of the thirty
day notice provision of 42 U.S.C. 47413 and a thorough analysis
of the term “potential to emit.”

-------
—2—
The defendant had argued that, in order to collect penalties
under 5113, EPA must prove that a source was in violation for the
30 day period of time immediately following the issuance of the
NOV and that any other events transpiring after this period are
irrelevant. The judge held that “the jurisdictional requirement
of 42 U.S.C. 47413 has been met if the source commits the specific
violation alleged in the NOV anytime after the 30 day grace
period has run.” He found that any other construction would
contravene the goals and purposes of the entire Clean Air Act
enforcement program.
The opinion restated Judge Arraj’s position on the proper
construction of the term “potential to emit” as first set forth
in his Memorandum Opinion on cross motions for summary judgment
issued October 30, 1987. That opinion stated that “restrictions
contained in state permits which limit specific types and amounts
of actual emissions (blanket restrictions on emissions) are riot
properly considered in the determination of a source’s potential
to emit.” Slip opinion at 35—36. However, other federally
enforceable permit restrictions which restrict hours of operation
or amounts of material combusted are properly included.
The opinion stated that, in testing a source to determine
potential to emit, “the unit being tested must be operated during
the test in the manner in which it is designed to be operated
• , . . (W)ithiri that constraint, the unit must be operated at
maximum capacity, or ‘full throttle’ throughout the test.” Slip
opinion at 30. Judge Arraj was persuaded by LPC’s testimony that
a March 1985 stack test of emissions at the Olathe plant was not
performed under conditions within which the equipment was designed
to be operated. Because this stack test was the government’s
only piece of evidence that PSD requirements applied to the
Olathe plant, the judge dismissed EPA’s claim for relief for the
Olathe violations.
Significantly, Judge Arraj held that federally enforceable
permit limitations cannot act to limit potential to emit where
such limits are ignored or violated. He found that LPC had
knowingly violated the production limitations in its state
construction permit for the Kremmling facility. Because of this
violation, h. ruled that the production limits could not be
employed in determining potential to emit. Moreover, he held
tnat “regular and willful violation of one permit limitation
should eliminate consideration of any other permit
limitations. , • • which would otherwise apply to the source.”
Slip opinion at 41.

-------
—3—
In arriving at an appropriate penalty, Judge Arraj found
that there was no economic benefit from delayed compliance. His
conclusion was based on the reasoning that, by the first date of
LPC’s violation, LPC had already installed and was operating the
control equipment that probably would have been required as best
available control technology (BACT) if LPC had applied for a PSD
permit. The first date of violation was found to be November
1986, when LPC first exceeded the production limits in its state
permit.
However, the court ruled that:
Were this court to assess a nominal penalty only in
this case, it would give sanction to a willful disrea rd
of the PSD regulatory framework, and encourage other
sources in the future to disregard other lawful
restrictions on operations whenever convenient to do
so . . . . (T)he burden of guessing correctly (what•-
emissions will be) remains with the source, and .
a mistake in this process can indeed result in a
penalty. Otherwise, future sources that are unsure of
whether they will qualify as a major source will have
rio incentive to apply for PSD permits, which,
uridisputedly, is a burden. Slip opinion at 49—50.
Judge Arraj did not explan how he arrived at the figure of $65,000.
Concj.us ion
The amount of the penalty awarded by the Court is significantly
less than the government sought at trial. However, the opinion
contains language that will be helpful precedent for cases in the
-future. The reasons for the court’s relatively small penalty
turn on narrow.lggues of fact peculiar to this specific case and
cannot be used generally by other sources in future litigation.
While the government has not made a definite decision about
whether to appeal, it seems likely that we will accept Judge
Arraj’s decision. A copy of the Opinion is attached.
Attachment
CC: Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Civil Enforcement
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division

-------
—4—
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Regional Counsels
Region5 I—X
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III , and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII, and X
Air Branch Chiefs/Team Leaders
Office of Regional Counsel
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Air Division
Regions I-X

-------
/7Q_

-------
Page No. 1
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CM SECTION 172
(VOLUME 2)
** CLEAN AIR ACT SECTION 172
* PN172-86-02-28-052
RESPONSES TO FOUR VOC ISSUES RAISED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICES AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
* PN172-86-10-30-053
INCLUSION OF CLEAN-UP SOLVENTS IN DETERMINING APPLICABILITY TO
THE 100-TON PER YEAR NON-CTG REQUIREMENTS
* PN172-87-06-25-054
EMISSION CUT-OFF FOR CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES VOLATILE
ORGANIC COMPOUND SOURCES
* PN172-87-09-09-055
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR GRAPHIC ARTS RACT
* PN172-86-O1-09-057
CLARIFICATION OF CTG RACT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HIGH-DENSITY
POLYETHYLENE, POLYPROPYLENE, AND POLYSTYRENE
* PN172-86-09-29-058
SEASONAL VOC CONTROLS
* PN172-87-09-11-059
GEOGRAPHIC APPLICABILITY OF CLEAN AIR ACT SANCTIONS
* PN172-87-12-1O-O60
LETTER TO LEONARD LEDBETTER ON USE OF POTENTIAL VS ACTUAL
EMISSIONS FOR VOC REGULATIONS
* PN172-88-05-27-061
TRANSMITTAL OF EPA GUIDANCE ON VOC ISSUES
* PN172-88-06-21-062
TRANSMITTAL OF AUTOMOBILE TOPCOAT PROTOCOL
* PN172-88-08-23-063
LETTER TO WILLIAM JURIS ON VOC EMISSION CUTOFF
* PN172-88-09-07-O&4
AIR PROGRAMS APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PART D AND SECTION
110 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT (FR CITATION)
* PN172-88-11-04-065
EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES

-------
Page No. 2
09/01/89
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
DOCUMENT TITLE LISTING FOR CM SECTION 172
(VOLUME 2)
* PN172-88-12-O1-066
RACT REQUIREMENTS IN OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS
* PN172-88-12-16-067
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) DISPOSAL REGULATION
* PN172-88-11-04-068
EPA AUTHORITY TO REQUEST CHANGES IN RACT RULES
PN172-89-01-27-069
TRANSMITTAL OF QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON EMISSION INVENTORIES FOR
POST-1987 OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
CALL AREAS
* PN172-89-02-15-070
MARINE VESSEL VAPOR CONTROL
* PN172-89-03-16-071
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC’s)
* PN172-89-04-03-072
APPLICABILITY OF MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS COATINGS
REGULATIONS TO ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND FILLERS
* PN172890407073
BASELINE FOR CROSS-LINE AVERAGING
* PN172-89-05-03-074
IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AREAS EXCEEDING THE NAAQS
* PN172-89-05-25-075
CORRECTING CAPTURE EFFICIENCY (CE) REGULATIONS
* PN172-89-07-06-076
AEROSPACE AND SIMILAR RULES IN OZONE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(SIP’S)

-------
O Sr 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
— Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
i,,
PN 172-89-07-06-076
JUL 6 %989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Aerospace and Similar Rules in Ozone State Implementation Plans
FROM: Gerald A. Emlson,
Office of Air Quality lanning and Standards (MD-b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
A number of Regions have raised questions concerning volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from the aerospace industry. This memo is intended
to provide you with the most current information and guidance relative to this
industry. In assessing our efforts to “Level the Playing Field” for State VOC
regulation cutpoints, deficiencies, and deviations, we became aware that a
wide disparity exists between State VOC regulations for aerospace facilities.
(See attached Table A-3 from Region IX’s draft report, wCompliance Evaluation
of Surface Coatings in the California Aerospace Industry.”) Even though the
Regional Offices issued SIP calls to correct deficiencies and deviations, it
appears that some deviations regarding the aerospace industry were not
identified to the States as deficiencies.
Our objectives are to assure that SIP emission limits represent
reasonably available control technology (RACT) and to standardize these
regulations across post-1987 nonattainment areas. This action is intended to
prevent a wide variety of emission limits from being included in regulations
applicable to this industry throughout the country. Therefore, the emission
limits included in the control technique guideline (CTG) for miscellaneous
metal parts and products (MMP&P) must be applied to all applicable items,
regardless of whether they are under the aerospace category. Such limits must
be expressed in a fashion no less stringent than a 24-hour weighted average.

-------
2
As a result, specialty coatings applied to metal surfaces (such as
maskants, adhesive bonding primers, strippers, etc.) must comply with the
applicable emission limit specified in the CTG for the MMP&P.
If credit for transfer efficiency is allowed, the regulation must meet
the requirements specified in the document, “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations.’ t
The only allowable exemptions for this category are those stated In the
MMP&P CTG and for sources with actual VOC emissions less than 3 lbs/hour or 15
lbs/day or potential VOC emissions less than 10 tons per year. Also, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) model regulations for I IP&P exempt the
painting of the exterior of airplanes, boats, and ships for very specific
reasons.
In 1978, no known technology had been demonstrated to control the lean
concentrations of VOC in the large volumes of exhaust air from the large
hangers used in coating the exterior of large aircraft. Ocean going vessels
are not painted in spray booths; hence, add-on abatement was not an option.
It was not clear that complying coatings that meet the requisite performance
requirements would be readily available in the near term. (However, new
technology has now made add-on controls of aircraft spray booths
technologically feasible for use in those States that need the reductions.)
Regional Offices should therefore, under the post-1987 SIP calls, ask
States to review State regulations that are applicable to the aerospace
industry or ship painting and revise them if necessary to ensure that they are
consistent with these reconvnendations. Also, the Regional Offices should note
that the MMP&P regulations may not exempt the aerospace industry (except for
the exemptions noted above). The States should revise their regulations as
expeditiously as practicable after notification of the deficiency.
In the attached letter to Mr. Robert A. Wyman from Mr. Don R. Clay, dated
February 3, 1989, EPA has also provided guidance concerning source-specific
RACT determination.
Any questions concerning the technical aspects of this matter should be
directed to Dave Salman (FTS 629-0859); questions related to the regulatory
aspects should be directed to John Silvasi (FTS 629-5666) or Bill Johnson (FTS
629-5245).
Attachments
cc: J. Calcagni J. Farmer
R. Campbell B. Rosenberg
D. Clay J. Seitz

-------
TABLE A-3
NATIONAL COVERAGE OF AEROSPACE OPERATIONS
AREA SUMMARY OF (DV AGE
1. Kansas City, KA — Uses Miscellaneous Metal Parts &
Products (MMP&P) C rC limits, exempts
minor sources and the exterior
refinishing of airplanes.
2. St. Louis, MO - Uses ?V4P&P CrC limits, covers sources
emitting over 10 T/Y, exempts ex-
terior ref inistung ot alrpi.ances and
the tollowing; adhesion pronoters,
adhesive bonding primers, flight
test coatings, space vehi cl s, tuE
tank coatings and dry film IubrxcdraL .
3. Pennsylvania - Applies MMP&P limits to sources
with the potential to emit over 50
T/Y; no exemptions in the rule.
4. New Jersey ‘ - Applies MMP&P CrC limits; exempts
exterior coating of aircraft.
5. Wisconsin - Applies MMP&P CIC limits; exempts
exterior of airplanes and specialized
coatings required by state ot Lede al
agencies.
6. Washington - Has Aerospace-specific rule, exempts
chemical milling meskant.s, adhes; v
bonding primers, t.Light test coatings,
space vehicle coatings and tuel tank
coatings; covers sources emitting
40 J.bfdaybr llore.
7. Oregon — Applies CrC limits to sources emitting
over 15 lb/day no aerospace exemptions.
8. Puget Sound - Has Aerospace-speci tic rule, covers
sources emitting over 40 lb/day, exempts
chemical milling meskants, adhesive
bonding primers, to light test coatings,
space vehicle coatings and tuel tank
coatings. -.

-------
TABLE A-3 (cont’ d.)
AREA SUM!1ARYOFC)VERA E
9. Delaware — Applies MMP&P CIG limits, no aerospace
exemptions.
10. Massachusetts — Applies NMP&P CIT limits; covers
sources emitting over 25 T/Y, no
exemptions.
11. flneCticut — Applies fIMP&P C’IG limits, exempts
“interior and exterior” ot aircraft.
12. 1 xas - Applies MMP&P C’I limits, covers
sources emitting over 100 J.b/ady,
exempts exterior of airplanes.
13. Olorath — Applies MMP&P C rC limits, no size
based exemption, exempts in-s, tu
coating of aircraft and division-
approved high performance coatings.

-------
FEB 81989
r. kobert A. y an
Lath & Wat 1ns
555 South flower Street
Los Angeles, California 9C071.
Deer Paz. Wy an:
This Is in response to c r $ov er 9, 19€8, meeting regarding the
aerospace Industry. At that seating the Industry representatives
requested darlflcatlon of tbe following quest1ons (1) can States
deviate fr the Iscellaneous metal parts and products control techniques
guideline (CIG) In developing aerospace rules end (2) to at exUi t Is
State source -sped tic relief avail able.
The U.S. £nv1ror ntal Prot ct1on Ac!ency’s (EPAs) guidance for
reasonably available control technology (RACT) In ozone State Io pl entat1on
plans (SIP’s) appears In the Federal ç1ster of September 17, 197k
(44 FR 5. 76l). I encloslcg a copy of tr at notice for your 1nfor atIon
(Enclosurt I). The notice provides a definition o RACT: The lowest
1sslon limitation that a particular source I; capable of ma eting by the
application of control technology that Is ru ’asonably available considering
technclc,glcal and economic feac1bfl1t y . . . PACT for a particular source
Is determined on a case—by-case basis, conslderli;g the tcchnologlc& and
.conc 1c c1rcw stances of the individual sourct.’
The notice further states:
each (.TG contains recose cndat1ons to tt e States of whet EPA
cefls the ‘prest pt1ve norm’ for RACT, based on LPA’s current evalu t1on
of the capabilities and problems general to the Industry. Where the
States find the presi pt1ve norm applicabl, to an Individual source or
group of sources, £PA reco en4s that the State adopt requirements consistent
with the press ptlve norm level In order to Include I ACT Imitations In
the SiP . . . . The presumptive norm Is only a recoi endat1on. For any
source o(r) group of sources, regardless of whether they fall within the
Inoustry ncm, the State may dovelop case-by-case RACT req tr .onts
Indepencently Cf £PA’s reco aendat1oo. LPA will propose to approve any
suomitted ACT requ1ra ont that the State shows will satisfy the requirements
of the Act for PACT, based on the econ 1c and technical c1rcwa tances of
tne particular sources being re uleted.

-------
2
Wc continue to reyar the 1scellaneous c etals CIG to t e applicable
to coat ma of petal aerospace parts and components. The above cited
policy provides for obtaining a source-specific PACT deterolnation for an
lnclvlaual source if the State provides adequate docw entatlon that the
presumptive nor for RACT (e.g., emission control through use of an
Incinerator or carbon adsorber or process substitution such as the use of
coniplying coatings) Is econom lcafly or technologically infeasible.
It should be noted, however, that most of the pertinent rules were
adopted prior to 1932; and we are now over 7 years after that date. While
we do not priori preclude the ability of a source to make a showing
such as that described above, it Is likely that any credible source—sp IfIc
arguments uld have already been raised and resolved by this late date.
Hence, any such deoonstrat lon should adequately address the Source’s
efforts since rule doptlo , and should place the lack of an earlier
submittal Into context.
Further, the above response presumes that the area for which a
source—specific PACT determination Is requested does not lack an approved
SIP and complies with other Stetutory requirements. The EPA can only
approve a relaxation where the State demonstrates that coopi lance with
the otner statutory requirements of the Clean Mr Act, such as attelnoent
and reasonable further progress, Is also adequately addressed,
The (PA oust require expeditious compi lance with all surface coating
regulations; the.’efore, In order to Insure this result, we have 1n tructed
our Regional Offices (see enclosed memoranda dated August 7, 1986, and
Rove ber 23. 1987——Enclosures 2 and 3) to secure an expeditious schedule
for the Installati on of add—op control equ1p nent where plants are not In
co’ pl1arce. Low—solvent technology iilll only be accepted If co pl1ance
Is to be d onstrâted via complying coatings ulthln a very short time
perioG.
I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and representatives of
the aerospace Industry, and trust this Information is responsive to , our
Concerns,
Sincerely,
(SIGI D) DO1; R. CL
Con P. Clay
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
3 Enclosures
tcc: John Calcagni (P-.D—1 )
Eileen Claussen (AUP—443)
JoM Scltz (E —341)
Oi :W)attrC:Ffle

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PPIC ’
PN 172—89-05-25—075
MAY 2 5 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Correcting Capture Efficiency (CE) Regulations
— FROM: / Gerald A. Emison, Director
(01 Office of Air Quality Planning and S ndards (MD-b)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Radiation Division
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has
received a number of requests for additional guidance and
clarification relative to CE requirements for volatile organic
compound (VOC) emission limiting regulations. This memo is to
provide information on the status of that guidance and our
expectation regarding State implementation plan (SIP) submittals.
STATUS OF GUIDANCE
A generally applicable test method for CE cannot be
published at this time because of the variety of configurations
of sources that would be subject to the tests.
Basic principles for determining CE are presented in a
July 7, 1980 memo entitled “Determination of Capture Efficiency”
from Jim Berry of the Emission Standards and Engineering Division
(now the Emission Standards Division (ESD)] to Region IV (copy
attached). The Technical Support Division (TSD) will shortly
issue a memo that provides guidance on the sampling regimen and
describes procedures and conditions that cause inaccuracies which
should be considered. Test methods developed in accordance with
the principles set .forth in the above-noted memos should
standardize measurements of CE insofar as possible.
Standardization is often difficult, however, considering
i- i/i/so jvi c ç ’(cT rr-’ ’

-------
the diversity of processes for which CE must be measured or the
variety of feed streams which must be metered and analyzed as
part of a conventional material balance. Thus, it is not
presently possible to specify a generic method to be applied in
all cases.
Separate protocols are being developed with details for
conducting any of three kinds of tests: these draft protocols may
form the basis for a State to develop case-by-case test methods.
The first, developed around the concept of temporarily enclosing
the process and measuring all VOC’s that exit from the enclosure,
is now available from ESD. The others include, a comprehensive
liquid-to—gas material balance and a gas-to—gas material balance
without a temporary enclosure. These protocols should be
available by late this summer, after which EPA will conduct
confirming tests for all three protocols. The EPA has also
proposed a CE test for the rubber tire manufacturing industry (54
FR 6850, February 14, 1989) that includes a simplified liquid-to-
gas material balance method. This method would be applicable in
some unique cases when only a single solvent is used and the
coatings dry by evaporation (no reaction by-products are formed).
A separate memorandum currently under development will
provide guidance on ongoing enforcement cases that involve CE
testing.
IMPLICATIONS FOR “SIP CALL” SUBMITTALS
The May 25, 1988 document entitled “Issues Relating to VOC
Regulation Cutpoirits, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (also known
as the “blue book”) says, in regard to CE, that State regulations
rust:
o Specify CE test method where CE is discussed or implied
in the limit (e.g., webcoating operations with add-on
control).
o Employ the most recent guidance on CE testing (guidance
forthcoming) •1
Until EPA issues final CE test methods, an acceptable
response to the SIP call will be a commitment to develop test
methods consistent with the most recent EPA guidance on CE
testing on a case-by-case basis as needed and a commitment to
develop generally applicable test methods after EPA issues final
CE test methods.

-------
If you have any further questions about this matter, you may
call Jim Berry, (ESD) at 629—5605, Gary McAlister, (TSD) at 629—
2237, or John Silvasi (AQMD) at 629—5666.
Attachment
cc: J. Berry J. Seitz
J. Calcagni J. Silvasi
D. Cole P. Williamson
J. Farmer G. Wood
S. Holman S. Wyatt
B. Johnson Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
L. Kesari VOC Regulatory Contacts, Regions i—X
V. Katari/ VOC Enforcement Contacts, Regions I—X.
W. Laxton
G. McAlister
B. Poiglase

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PN 17289O5O3.. O74
3 MAY 1g99
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: f New Areas Exceeding the NAAQS
FROM: J ’ 1cagni, ector
Quality anag ent Division (MD—15)
TO: William Laxton, Director
Technical Support Division (MD-l4)
This is in response to your earlier request for our
consideration of two modeling related State implementation plan
(SIP) issues. Specifically, the two issues are: (1) approval of
a proposed SIP emission limit for a source under consideration
when there are modeled violations of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) due to nearby background sources in the
surrounding area, and (2) the resource burden associated with
assembling the data necessary for modeling the background
sources. This memorandum restates the existing policy developed
by the Model Clearinghouse and discusses limited exceptions to
the policy.
SIP Approvals
our general policy may be summarized as follows:
1. Background concentrations are an essential part of the
total air quality concentration to be considered in
determining source impacts. Nearby sources which are
expected to cause a significant concentration gradient
in the vicinity of the source under consideration
should be explicitly modeled (as “background” sources).
2. Under section 110 of the Clean Air Act, each SIP must
provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Where background sources are found to cause or
contribute to a violation, a SIP revision for the
source under consideration generally should not be
approved until each violation in the modeled Region is
prevented or eliminated through the SIP rules. This
policy avoids approval of a SIP revision which does not
provide for attainment throughout the modeled area.

-------
2
I also recognize that section 110 allows for approval of
portions of SIPs. Therefore, exceptions to the general policy
may be warranted in certain circumstances. Before any exception
will be considered, it must be clearly shown that the SIP would
be improved as a result of the partial approval. As a minimum,
the following factors should be considered in determining
exceptions to the general policy:
1. Approval would not interfere with expeditious
attainment (i.e., emissions from the source under
consideration do not cause or contribute to the modeled
violation).
2. There would be an environmental benefit (i.e., the SIP
revision would result in an actual emissions decrease
and ambient air quality improvement).
3. Enforcement of the SIP would be improved (e.g., without
approval there would be no federally enforceable
measure for the source under consideration or
ambiguities in the previous limit serve to frustrate
enforcement efforts).
Where it is found that an exception should be made based on
the above factors, we expect the proposed approval notice to
specifically identify the background source violations and
clearly state that the State retains an obligation to take action
expeditiously to correct the background violations. The final
approval notice for the source under consideration should not be
promulgated before the State acknowledges the background
violations and submits an acceptable schedule for corrective
action. The schedule would then be included in the final notice
as the State’s response to EPA’s identification of violations. A
SIP call pursuant to section 11O(a)(2)(H) should be issued where
a State fails to acknowledge its obligation and submit a schedule
for resolution of violations during the comment period.
Resources
The resource burden associated with assembling the necessary
data and modeling the background sources has been extensively
discussed through the Model Clearinghouse and annual modelers’
workshops. I believe that the resource burden associated with
modeling background sources using current modeling guidance need
not be as great as it potentially appears.
The Guideline on Air Quality Models ( Guideline ) states that
the nearby (background) source inventory should be determined in
consultation with the local air pollution control agency.
Specifically; the Guideline states that “The number of
(background) sources is expected to be small except in unusual

-------
3
situations.” In this and in other areas, the Guideline
necessarily provides flexibility and requires judgment to be
exercised by the reviewing agency. The resource burden may be
mitigated somewhat by application of this judgement.
In investigating whether more explicit guidance is needed,
my staff has coordinated with the Model Clearinghouse and the
modeling and SO, contacts in each Regional Office. Given the
flexibility that is provided by existing guidance and the
tendency for more explicit policy to reduce this flexibility, no
further guidance was judged necessary. The Regional Offices
generally have been able to work with their States to collect
sufficient data to support the necessary modeling. Consequently,
there was little support for the suggestion to revise the current
policy to more explicitly limit the number of sources that should
be modeled for downwash.
Conclusion
I believe that an exception to the general policy regarding
processing of SIP revisions may be warranted where it is in the
best interests of air quality to approve certain SIP revisions
notwithstanding the existence of violations due to background
sources. However, the affected State retains an obligation to
take corrective action in response to any properly conducted
analyses which demonstrate a violation. This policy is
consistent with the Guideline and Model Clearinghouse actions.
My staff is available to assist in application of this policy on
a case-by-case basis.
If you would like to discuss these issues further, please
call me or have your staff contact Doug Grano at extension 5255.
cc: R. Baurnan
R. Campbell
P. Emnbrey (OGC)
E. Ginsburg
D. Grano
J. Silvasi
D. Stonefield
J. Tikvart
D. Wilson
Air Division Directors, Regions I—X

-------
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
-Line Averaging
Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Division
IV, VI
Air and Radiation Division
5i,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT1ON AGENCY
Office of A’ Quality PIannin and Standards
Research Tr angIe Park North Carolina 27711
• / PN 172-89-04-07-073
- 7 APR i
MEMORANDUM
it Division (MD—15)
Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director,
Regions
Director,
Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, X
This memorandum clarifies the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) policy concerning baseline calculations for volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emission trades involving cross-line
averaging for coating operations. The major issues are
appropriate procedures to develop a baseline for cross-line
averaging, and use of emission limitations (caps) for sources
seeking cross-line averaging.
As you know, EPA policy treats cross—line averages as
bubbles covered under the emissions trading policy statement
(ETPS). Cross-line averaging refers to the averaging of
emissions from two or more operations or sources to achieve
compliance with the emission limits of a rule (generally
expressed in units of mass of VOC per volume of coating, or mass
of VOC per volume of solids applied).
The ETPS defines baselines as the lower of actual or
allowable emissions [ or RACT-allowable for nonattajnment areas
needing but lacking an approved attainment demonstration (NALD)]
in a mass per time unit (e.g., tons/year or pounds/day). This
value is calculated as the product of an emission rate (e.g., in
ib’ of solids applied), a capacity utilization (e.g., lb of solids

-------
applied/hour), and the hours of operation (e.g., lTi hours/day).
This is an obvious discrepancy because cross-line averaging does
not require a limit on production but the ETPS appears to require
a cap on production. However, page 43843 of the ETPS states:
“Unless enforceable restrictions are or have been
placed on capacity utilization and hours of operation,
or on overall emissions, maximum values for capacity
utilization and hours of operation must generally be
used in calculating post-trade emission limits and in
modeling of the post-bubble case”
The word “generally” in this sentence was explicitly
included to preserve the option of cross-line averaging as
discussed above. In other words, cross-line averaging was an
exception to the general ETPS. Therefore, a cross—line average
is consistent with EPA policy if the trade is based on the lower
of actual or allowable emission rate (or RACT—allowable for
NALD’s) and current production. No assumptions are needed
concerning historic production: the trade is based solely on the
appropriate emission rate.
In a cross-line average, credit is generated and used over
a 24-hour period (i.e., a lower emission rate on one line
compensates for a high emission rate on another line) and,
therefore, the amount of credit does not depend on historical
production.
Even though use of caps is not required for cross-line
averaging, they would obviously be more beneficial (than no cap)
in providing progress toward attainment and maintenance in
NkLD’s. Thus, EPA would encourage caps.
Note that, for NALD’S, if one coating line in the trade had,
within the 2 years preceding the date of applications, used a
coating whose VOC content was lower than the SIP-allowable or
RACT-allowable, that lower rate must be used in calculating the
baseline emission rate for the plant.
Ted Creekmore (629—5699) is available for further discussion
of these issues.
cc: T. Helms C. Stahl, R-III
J. Silvasi K. Prince, R-IV
T. Creekmore L. Schultz, P-V
R. Ossias B. Riddle, R-VI
H. Hoffman C. Whitmore, P-Vu
B. Elman D. Wells, R-VIII
N. Cypser J. Ungvarsky, R-IY.
D. Conroy D. Bray, P-X
H. C-onzalas, R—II

-------
-. UMTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL ROTECTION A(3ENCy
Of’ce of Ar QuaI: ’ Pianning and Stenc rd:
Research TrianoI P k Nor n CaroI’nd 2?7i
‘ (
P 172-89-04_03_072
APR o:: 1989
riEMORAN DLTM
SUBJECT: Applicability of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Coatings Regulations to Adhesives, Sealants and Fillers
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief 4’o-rr _
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch
TO: Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch, Region V
This memorand is in response to a question concerning
whether adhesives, sealants, and fillers must be treated as
coatings subject to miscellaneous metal parts and products
regulations. In particular, the exemption of adhesives,
sealants, and fillers was identified by Region V as a deficiency
in Wisconsin’s volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations.
Wisconsin’s voc rule for miscellaneous metal parts and products
exempts adhesives and materials used to prepare a surface for
adhesives; and it also exempts sealants or fillers whose purpose
is to seal or fill seams, joints, holes, and minor imperfections
of surfaces. The State has requested national guidance which
indicates that the application of adhesives, sealants, and
fillers to metal parts must be subject to surface coating
regulations.
The Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) for miscellaneous
metal parts and products does not specifically exempt the
application of adhesives, sealants, and fillers, nor are such
exemptions Contained in any subsequent EPA guidance. In general,
these must be Considered coatings and be required to meet RACT
limits for miscellaneous metal parts operations. Any State
regulations which currently contain a blanket exemption for these
coatings Should be revised to eliminate the exemption. However,
a State would still have the option of making a demonstration, on
a case-by-case basis, that a particular adhesive, sealant or
filler should not be considered a coating, as intended by the
CTG. If such a demonstration is made, an exemption could be
allowed through a site-specific si revision.
If you have any questions, please call John Silvasi (FTS
629—5666) or David Cole (FTS 629—5497).
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Regions r-x

-------
i D S ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PN 172-89-03-16-071
tvI 1 AR 1 1339
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Compliance Schedules or Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC’s)
FROM: John Calca Director
Air Qualit Managemen lvi ion
John Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Co iance Divisi.
TO: David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division, Region V
We have reviewed your memorandum dated December 7, 1988
regarding two issues on compliance schedules for VOC’s. The
first issue pertains to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’S) COnti.flUjty policy, which requires that each source comply
with an existing State implementation plan (SIP) until the new or
revised si is met. As you stated in your memorandum, this
policy has been (and Continues to be) a key feature of EPA’s
implementation of Part D of the Clean Air Act. This memorandum
reaffirms EPA’s intention of Supporting and maintaining this
policy, Particularly in light of the post—1987 SIP calls and
correction of VOC deficiencies and deviations.
The second issue pertains to a source’s need and/or request
for additional time to comply with the revised voc regulations.
You proposed two approaches for extending compliance schedules
for corrected voc rules.
The first approach would not grant any additional compliance
time except through the delayed compliance order (DCO) process.
(Under the DCO process, a source may request up to an additional
3 years to comply with a VOC regulation.) We recommendthjs
approach (i.e., immediately effective rules with case-by-case
DCO’s) when the changes are trivial or simply clarify previous
interpretations and do not impose significant new 1 additional
burdens on sources that were otherwise in compliance with the
approved sip. (Sources riot in compliance with existing
requirements should not be allowed additional compliance time,

-------
and instead should be handled through a traditional compliance
approach.) In addition, when a rule change affects only part of
a source category or the State cannot document how the change
will affect sources, the rule should be immediately effective
(and the DCO process is appropriate).
However, this first approach (no additional compliance time)
may be unduly restrictive in circumstances where previously
exempted sources are newly regulated, or where sources that
previously complied with the approved SIP now require major
process changes and/or major capital expenditures to comply.
In these instances, we recommend the second approach of setting a
“presumptive norm” compliance schedule of 1 year or less (from
the effective date of the revised rule). However, under this
second approach, the State is obligated to clearly demonstrate
that these circumstances exist for all sources eligible for this
“presumptive norm.” The “presumptive norm” compliance time
frame would not necessarily apply to an entire source category.
In this case, the State’s regulation allowing the “presumptive
norm” would need to clearly specify that portion of the source
category affected. Conversely, the regulation would need to
clearly specify that the other sources in the category have an
immediately effective compliance date (i.e., the DCO is the only
route available for an extension).
Under the “presumptive norm” approach, we also agree with
your suggestion that any source requesting additional time beyond
the 1 year would be required to apply for a DCO, rather than
submitting a rule revision. If a DCO becomes necessary, we would
encourage the Regional Offices to limit compliance date
extensions to the minimum time necessary to comply with the
modified regulations, not to exceed 3 years from the date of rule
adoption. Further, the DCO should be limited only to changes
made necessary by the rule change. Noncompliance incidental to
the rule change should not be included in the DCO; instead, these
cases should be handled through normal compliance mechanisms. In
any case, EPA retains the responsibility to ensure that -any
compliance schedule, whether it is contained in the SIP submittal
or is the result of a DCO, meets the Clean Air Act’s requirements
of expeditiousness.
While EPA’s policy on grandfathering provisions would apply
in these compliance cases (memorandum from Gerald A. Emison,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division *
Directors, “Grandfathering of Requirements for Pending SIP
Revisions,” June 27, 1988), we are not aware of any SIP
submittals that would be grandfathered by this policy. Please
advise us if this is not the case.
p 1 ’q 110 go -;- —O 9

-------
If you have any questions or comments, please call John
Silvasi at FTS 629-5666 or David Cole at FTS 629—5497.
Attachment
cc: R. Ossias, OGC
Air Director, Regions I-X
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Regional Division Directors
Regional Air Branch Chiefs (Programs and Compliance)
VOC Regulatory Contacts
VOC Compliance Contacts

-------
UNF lID STAT 5 eNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A3ENCY
Off of A r uaIity Planninç and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
15 FEB 1 PN 172-89-02-15—070
EMO AW
St 4ECT: Marine V esiel Vapor
FROM: Jack R. Farmer, Di i
E Sssion Standards Divf
TO: Willita Hathaway, Dfre(tor
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, (PA Region VI
Recently, the Fa 4ss1on Standards Division coemonted on Louisiana ’s
revised draft marine vapor recovery regulation (Se. attached memo). As
you know, other State and local agencies are also pursuing regulation of
marine vessel loading operations. Including the State of New Jersey and
California’s Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Control
of marine vessel emissions has raised an Issue of safe operation of vapor
control systems. The Coast Guard is addressing the Issue of safety by
developing regulations which will specify eQuipment and procedures deemed
necessary to ensure safe operation during loading and vapor Control
operations.
Control of mirlne veisels has also raised the issue of determining
compliance with regulations, given both the present lack of knowledge
concerning vapor collection efficiency when close-loaded for the purpose
of vapor control and the lack of a vapor collection test for t e purpose
of determining compliance Therefore, we thought It would be useful to
describe alternative approaches to ensure emission control which, If
adopted, would result in adequate vapor collection and would also solve
the Issue of vapor collection •fficf.ncy and compliance determination. A
more detailed deicrlptlon of the i s su. and an approach to resolve It are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
BAc GROUXD
Presently, nearly all marine vessels are loaded with the vessel
hatches or elevated vent pipes open to the aaosphere; cargo vapors are
simply displaced to the a osphere. To effectively control these vapors
the following steps are necessary:

-------
2
1, all openings to the s nosphere must be closed during loading;
2. a repor_collectlon piping system must be Installed • the piping
manifold system will 1 it likely be either attached directly to the
hit hs or be connected to the elevated Vent lines, and;
3. the •ntfr, contrøl system Including the vessel vapor piping,
the piping which connects to the vessel manifold piping and routes vapors
to the control unit, and the control unit - aict be designed to not exceed
the positive end negative pressure settings of the vessel $etting of the
vessel pressure.ivaCugm (PY) vents.
Marine v•$1el are not structurally designed to withstand very large
pressure lncreasis or decreases In the cargo space relative to a ospher$c
pressure. Vessels may withstand pressure chances of a few pounds per
square Inch gauge. All vessel; are equipped w th PV vents which open to
a osphere when pressure inside the vessel exceeds the PY vent pressure
setting end also open into the vessel If negative pressure develops which
exceeds the PY vent pressure setting. Pressure changes occur during
loading, unloading, and when cargo vapors expand and contract with temper-
ature changes. The PY vents are designed to open at pressure settings
well below v*&sel pressure tolerances to avoid catastrophic failure of
the vessel. Vapor control systems can be desIgnd to operate below the
PY vent pressure settings to prevent vapor loss during biding.
Recently, both the States of Louisiana and New Jersey, and California’s
BMQND have sdopted regulations for marine vessel loading operations, These
regulations specify overall control system effectiveness in the format of a
percent emission reduction requirement end/or a mass rate limit. Under
if thir regulatory approach, an estimate of vapor collection efficiency will
need to be determined. With a percent emission reduction requirement a
determination of add—on control unit efficiency is also needed; the
efficiency can be determined during Initial Compliance and operation of
the control device ensured subsequintly by monltorthg process paremeter(s)
(e.g.. operating temperatures of a thermal Incinerator). However, with a
mass rate limit, mon testing Is required by virtue of having to test
every vessel that Is loaded to determine either cempliance or applicability.
Therefore, regulationi which ensure good vapor capture efficiency and then
concentrate on te t requirements for the add-on control device will likely
minimize the colts of regulation,
We have developed much knowledge on add-on control devices and expect
incinerators, flares, end recovery devices to perform the same here as
for other volatile organic compound (VOC) streams. Properly designed and
operated thermal Incinerators, flares, and recovery devices would be
expected to achieve 98, 98, and 95 percent emission reduction, respectively,
when tested during the latter part of loading when vapors tend to be at
their highest concentrations.

-------
3
To co ly with a percent emission reduction requirement, one must
know both the vapor collection efficiency and the emission reduction
achieved by the •dd.on control unit (e.g., incfneratlon) (i.e., Pe t
Emission Reduction • Vapor Collection Efficiency x Add-on Control Unit
Cf ffclenc.y). We do not have a test method designed to deter 1ne vapor
collection efficiency. Therefore, a measurement of vapor collection
efficiency will flOt be available. Additionally, It Is not clear how
tight vessels will be once they are closed for control purposes, Because
of this uncertainty, vapor leakage from the PY vents and the hatch covers
ire of particular concern. We do not know to whet extent If any, that PV
vents and hatch covers that are part of a well.des lgned syste. will leak
vapors during loading Operations. The lir1can Petroletmi Instit t.’,
(API) Marine Vessel Emissions Task Force Is gathering data to address
this concern; the API Task Force is scheduled to make reco endatf ons to
API by mid-1989. We wtfl review their data when they become available
The degree of vapor collection and the mathodolo to d onstrata
compliance with the reQuirement may either be requl red or Implied In the
regulation. Vapor collection efficiency, depending on the stringency of
the requirements, will affect the design of the add-on control system.
Vapor cell tion systems may be designed to result In either a ilight
positive or negative pressure in the vessel. The most stringent require-
ment would specify collection of all vapors without any leakage and would
likely necessitate a design system which, when operating, results In a
slight vacutr In the vessel to prevent vapors from escaping. Although It
Is clear that a vessel under slight negative pressure will not leak YOC,
It Is not clear whether a vessel operating under a slight positive pressure
will leak to an extent to preclude compliance. Although Coast Guard
safety requirements will ensure that positive or negative pressure within
the vessel will not explode or implode the vessel, empirical data demon-
strating the degree of tightness under a positive pressure system are
rather limited, if not nonexistent. We are, however, suggesting the
following approaches to ensure high capture efficiency and effective con-
trol which would allow vessels to maintain either a slight positive or
negative pressure while connected to a vapor control system.
Suigested Alternative Approaches For Ensuring Emission Control
First, the norm for all marine vessel control strategies should be a
totilly closed vessel/vapor capture system. That Is, during loadIng all
hatches should be closed and all PY vents should remain shut while loading.
The control system could operate under either a positive or negative
pressure depending on the type of vessel being loaded.

-------
4
The onboard vapor collection iystem would then route vapors to the
add-on çontrl unit, Second, the EPA Method 21 can be used as a surrogate
vapor collection efficiency test to ensure that essentially afl the
vapors are belnrcollected. Method 21 is presently used as $ screening
technique to equipment component leaks which require maintenance. We are
assiing that hatch covers and PY vents In particular will not leak to
an appreciable extent under closed loading conditions for many vessels.
If hitch covets and LV vents do not leak more than other components
(e.g., p ps, valves, flanges, and pressure relief devices), then the
seas emissions estimated from vessel equipment leaks will be relatively
imall when compared to total cargo vapor mass. Therefore, If vessel
components can pass a Method 21 screenIng test, then we are Confident of
a high vapor collection efficiency. The Method 21 leak definition of
10,000 ppm, which is measured at potential leak Interfaces (hatch cover
gaskets), Is based on empirical date for valves and p ps and represents
the screening value above which approxImately 95 percent of mass emissions
Occur. Although little data exist to support the ability of vessels to
meet Method 21 wIth a 10,000 ppm leak definition, both Exxon and Chevron
recently performed Method 21 tests on their vessels and stated at a Coast
Guard meeting that the results suggest that some vissel a, when closed and
loaded, may be tight enough to meet Method 21 with a 10,000 ppm leak
definition. Presently, a leak definition of 10,000 ppm can be used with
the understanding that as more empirical data are collected, a different
definition may be developed for the purpose of demonstrating high vapor
collection efficiency.
The suggested alternative approaches for ensuring emission control
are as follows:
1. Veisels operated below abnospheric pressure during loading will
be exempt from determining vapor collection efficiency. Vapor collection
efficiency will be essia ed to be 100 percent.
2. Vessels operated above a ospheric pressure will be tasted using
EPA Method 21. Vessels which have equipment meeting a Method 21 action
level 0 f 10,000 ppmv when tested during the last 20 percent of loading
will be ass ned to have a vapor collection efficiency equal to 100 percent.
During Initial loading of product, displaced YI Of$ are generally lean.
Therefore, tasting Is specified at the end of loading when vessel vapors
are at their highest concentration of VOC.
3. Vessels operated above abirnspheric pressure and falling EPA
Method 21 tastIng may perform maintenance on leaking equipment and test
again.

-------
S
It Is recommended that vessel operating pressure be measured at the
sMp/shore unifold and be adjusted to account for the pressure dlffer.n.
tial be eetf the.pressure measured at the ship/shore manifold and the
pressure In the vessels cargo tanks. Measuring at the sMp/shore manifold
would provide a convenient location to check pressure levels rather than
measuring pressure at each cargo hold and having to board the Vessel to
r*ad the gauges. The Coast Guard would like to eflminate the fl 4 for
personnel to board the vessels because of safety considerations.
Also, th. frequency of performing the Method 21 test his not been
determ ned , given the lack of data concerning marine vessel components and
how component le frequency changes with tims. However, one Should not
confuse the frequency of Method 21 screening f r leak detection and repair
progrw s, such as those frequencies specified In new source perfor .nce
standirds, for the purpose of reducing missfons from leaking components,
with using Method 21 as a surrogate vapor collecti on efficiency test. For
compfl,nce purposes, a vapor collection efficiency test may be needed
only once a year.
If you have any questions pleas. call David Markwordt at (919) 541—
0837 or FTS 629 O837.
Attact ent
cc: Jorge Berkowitz, New Jersey DEP
Gus Von Bodungen, Loulsiena DEQ
Jim Keyes, California BAA ID
Captain John Maxham, Coast Guard
Air Directors, Regions l.Y, VI1.X

-------
ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO\ AGENCy
OfTice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1

PN 172—89-O1_27_06g
27 JAN 192 ’
MEMORANQIJM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Questions and Answers on Emission
Inventories for Post-1987 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
State Iniplenlentation Plan Call Areas
FROM: William G. Laxton, Direct /// jt..L1’,
Technical Support DiviSi (* Ll 4 )
TO: Chief, State Air Programs Branch, Region I
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions ii-iv, VI, VIII—X
Chief, Air and Radiation Branch, Region v
Chief, Air Branch, Region vii
Chief, Air Compliance Branch, Regions iv—v
Chief, Air Enforcement Branch iii
Chief, Air Operations Branch, Region ix
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to you the
second issuance of EPA responses to specific questions and issues
concerning the proposed post-1987 ozone/carbon monoxide State
Implementation Plan emission inventory requirements and
procedures. The previous issuance, dated August 15, 1988,
addressed questions regarding policy and requirements issues.
This issuance responds to questions and issues collected during
and since the recently Completed emission inventory workshops.
We have prepared responses to some of these important
questions and are sending a collection of the questions and
responses to you and all of the workshop attendees. Answers to
the remaining questions are in preparation and will be mailed
under a similar Cover letter as soon as they are available.
Attachments
cc: Charles Gray, OMS
John Calcagni, OAQP5

-------
General Guidance Issues
Q: Some of the guidance presented at the workshops was not in
final form. How should the States and local agencies
proceed in preparing the inventories without final
requirements and procedures?
A: The key guidance on the requirements and procedures was
provided at the workshops in essentially final form.
Revisions incorporated since the workshops have been
primarily editorial corrections and clarifications resulting
from discussions at the workshops. The su.bstance of the
guidance materials, as indicated at each of the workshops,
has not been revised. Additional guidance materials on the
application of MOBILE4 and on preparing quality assurance
plans are being provided early in 1989. Absence of these
guidance materials at this time is not expected to hamper
initial progress in the development of the inventories. The
information in the additional guidance can be applied as it
is received.
Q: Does EPA foresee presentation of workshops covering other
facets of emission inventory and SIP development (e.g.,
emission projections, modeling, reasonable further progress,
mobile source emissions, and control strategy development)?
A: Additional guidance is being developed beyond that presented
at the workshop, primarily involving MOBILE4, projected
inventories, and AIRSHED modeling. Workshops will be
planned depending on the perceived needs and requests from
State and local agencies.
Q: What is meant by the phrase “draft emission inventory” when
describing the requirements for submittal of a base year
emission inventory?
A: The term “draft” was used in guidance documents distributed
at the 03 and Co sx emission inventory workshops and in
discussions at the workshops to refer to the initial
submittal of emission inventories due within one year of
receipt of the inventory guidance. The term was meant to
convey that while the initial base year inventories are to
be complete, the inventories will undergo a review by EPA
and that revisions or additions may be required before the
final inventory is submitted with the SIP. The term “draft”
has been eliminated from the final versions of the guidance
documents to avoid the potential for inference of a brief or
incomplete inventory effort.

-------
Q: What type of input data will be needed for MOBILE4?
A: Draft MOBILE4 input guidance was distributed at the
workshops. A summary of the input data is below. Note that
some of these data will have default values built into the
model for cases where a State elects not to use local data.
Specify local data for:
0 Region for which emission factors are to be calculated
(e.g., low or high altitude)
0 Calendar year
o Vehicle speed
o Ambient temperature (e.g., daily minimum and maximum)
0 Percentage of total VMT attributable to noncatalyst
vehicles operating in the cold-start mode
Percentage of total VMT attributable to catalyst vehicles
operating in the hot—start mode
0 Percentage of total VMT attributable to catalyst vehicles
operating in the cold-start mode
0 Fuel volatility for season of interest
0 ASTM volatility class
Specify local data or use default values reflecting national
averages for:
o Distribution of VMT by vehicle type
0 Vehicle model year and accumulated mileage distributions
0 Factors to correct light duty vehicle emissions for air
conditioner use, extra loading, trailer towing, and
humidity
Specify control program parameter, when applicable:
o Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program
- Start year
- Stringency
- Model years included
- Waiver rate
- Program enforcement level
2

-------
— Inspection frequency
— Vehicle types included
- I/M test used
Fuel Volatility Control
— Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of fuel at control level
— Start year
stage II Control
— Start year
— Number of phase-in years
— Percent efficiency
0 Anti-Tampering Program
— Start years
- Model years included
- Vehicle types included
- Centralized computer-aided or manual program
— Components inspected
Q: In the discussion of estimation of VOC emissions from
municipal solid waste landfills at the top of page 4-32 in
the reference entitled Procedures For The Preparation Of
Emission Inventories For Precursors Of Ozone,. Volume I , EPA
450/4—88—021, December 1988, what is meant by “this emission
factor represents an estimate of the average annual
emissions over the lifetime of a landfill ...“?
A: The “lifetime of a landfill” refers to the time that
municipal solid wastes exist in a landfill, whether the
landfill is operating or closed.
3

-------
Modeling Issues
Q: What is EPA’S position regarding the use of the Urban
Airshed Model (UAN) versus E}Q(A in preparing the SIP?
A: Either method is acceptable for use in SIP attainment
demonstrat-ions. Of the two approaches, the UAN is generally
preferred because the model has the potential for better
evaluation of the effect of detailed control strategies.
The model has better spatial and temporal resolution,
ability to consider different reactivities of VOC emissions,
and more extensive capabilities for assessing effects of
strategies on factors other than peak ozone.
Q: How does the EKMA model factor in the effects of elevated
releases from point sources?
A: All VOC and Co emissions are assumed to occur in the well
mixed layer. The proposed EI 1A guidance outlines a
procedure to address NO emissions from tall stacks. In
essence, the user must calculate a plume rise for the NO
source and determine whether this height is above or below
the hourly mixing height used in E A. Thus, emissions from
elevated sources are ignored unless and until the mixed
layer grows to include the plume’s effective stack height.
Q: How is the EKMA model reconciled with the possibility that
ozone may be at higher locations where no monitors are
located?
A: EI 1A relies upon a measured ozone level as one of the key
inputs and assumes that the measured value represents the
maximum ozone level. The ozone monitoring guidance has been
developed with this purpose. On the other hand, the more
sophisticated UAN may produce results indicating maximum
ozone levels at locations other than the monitoring sites.
Q: If the E1 4A trajectory traverses only a limited number of
counties in an MSA/CMSA, what is the purpose for
inventorying’ the entire MSA/CMSA?
A: EI 4A relies on data from the ozone monitoring network to
provide the maximum ozone levels in the MSA/CMSA. In most
cases, resource constraints prevent monitoring to cover all
possible wind directions and all distances. As a result,
the maximum ozone level may very well occur at some
unmeasured site or direction. Emissions from the entire
MSA/CMSA must be controlled to account for directions and
4

-------
distances not covered by the monitoring network.
Q: What spatial detail is necessary to apply E) (A and why is
such spatial detail important?
A: Emissions data on a countywide basis may be used in applying
EIQIA. Sub..county gridding ia also allowable providing the
grids are at least 10k by 10k in size. Spatial resolution
is important in accounting for significant variations in
terms of location and time of day.
Q: What is EPA’s guidance regarding modeling of natural VOC
sources?
A: EPA is currently conducting analyses using the UAM to
establish the effect of biogenic emissions on ozone levels.
If the results indicate biogenic emissions are significant
in urban scale ozone analyses, EPA will revise the guidance
and the models to include an inventory and application of
biogenic emissions. The estimates of biogenic emissions for
the U. S. should be available as part of the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) by the middle of
1989.
Q: Are the inventory requirements and guidance EPA has provided
consistent with use of either E1Q A or UAN so that either may
be selected for use at a later time?
A: The inventory guidance defines the basic data required for
the application of EKMA. As discussed in the guidance,
these data and optional data are also required for
application of the UAN. Such optional data include source
location coordinates and stack parameters (e.g., stack
height, stack exit diameter, exhaust gas temperature, and
volume flow rate). Use of the UAN also requires that VOC
emissions be speciated or separated into specific chemical
mechanism categories. The EPA is developing default
speciation values for categorizing VOC emissions by source
classification code (SCC). The SAN PC system will
accommodate the data elements required for UAN application.
States and local agencies should determine early which model
will be used in order to request the appropriate data from
sources.
5

-------
Q: To what extent is wind direction/source-monitor orientation
factored into an EI 1A analysis?
A: For an area without significant transport, wind direction
data are used to establish whether winds are generally in
the direction from the central city towards the “downwind”
ozone monitor.
For an area with significant transport, wind direction and
speed data from several stations are used to define a
backward trajectory in determining likely sources for
transported ozone.
Q: Is EKMA sensitive to boundary conditions, and what is the
guidance available for selecting appropriate boundary
conditions? Will the NE States rely on RO!’D ET to establish
boundaries?
A: The EKNA guidance outlines procedures for determining
present and future levels of boundary parameters to which
the model is sensitive (N1’!OC, NOR, and ozone aloft). Areas
in the northeast are expected to use ROMNET results in
determining boundary conditions for EKMA. The EPA is
preparing procedures for converting ROMNET outputs into
values needed to run E1 A.
6

-------
Quality Assurance Issues
Q: When should quality assurance plans for the 0 3 /CO SIP
emission inventories be submitted by the States?
A: Quality assurance (QA) plans should be submitted early to
allow for review by EPA before inventory compilation and QA
efforts are completed by the States. While the timing for
submitting the QA plans must be determined in cooperation
with the Regional Office, we recommended to the Regional
Offices that the State and local agencies submit QA plans
within 60 days of Regional Office notification to submit the
QA plan. This notification should include the guidance
materials on preparing the QA plans.
Q: How does EPA plan to verify vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
data developed by the Department of Transportation, but not
submitted to EPA?
A: The EPA will not verify the VMT data as part of our QA
program; that responsibility will lie with the State and
local agencies using the data. Each State should discuss
the procedures for verifying the VMT data as well as other
critical data elements in the required QA plans.
Q: Is each State or local agency expected to designate and
provide a quality assurance (QA) person?
A: Yes. This person need not be devoted full time to QA
activities but should be independent from other emission
inventory functions.
Q: Must each State and local agency prepare a QA plan to submit
to EPA?
A: Only the State agencies are required to submit a QA plan to
EPA for approval; although, every inventory preparation
agency should develop and follow a comprehensive QA plan.
Depending on the size of each local agency and the resources
available to complete the inventory efforts, States may
require that the local agencies also prepare QA plans.
Q: Explain the manual and computer-aided quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) review program planned by EPA.
A: The EPA is developing QA/QC emission inventory checks that
will be applied to both manual and computer-aided
7

-------
operations. The envisioned approach is to apply a
checklist-driven manual review to each inventory, not
necessarily to each source or source category in the
inventory. This primarily administrative check will ensure
that all of the required data are submitted, while some
technical checks will be performed, as well. The computer—
aided review, based primarily on the SAX PC system, will
incorporate the same checklist for review and viii include a
more intensive technical review of critical data elements
for selected sources. The SAN PC system with the QA/QC
checks will be available to the State and local agencies in
preparing the emission inventories.
8

-------
Q: On January 18, 1989, a Federal Register notice was issued
adding four chiorofluorocarbons to the list of organic
compounds that EPA considers to be negligibly reactive (54
FR 1987). Should these compounds be excluded from post-1987
ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) emission inventories?
A: In the guidance document entitled Procedures For The
Preparation Of E nission Inventories Of Ozone Precursors ,
December 1988, it is stated that methane, ethane, methylene
chloride, methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichioroethane), and
seven CFC’s (CFC’s 11, 12, 22, 113, 114, 115, and FC 23) are
considered nonreactive under atmospheric conditions and
should be excluded from ozone SIP emission inventories (see
page 2-13 of reference). The Federal Register notice
mentioned above adds CFC’s 123, 141b, 142b, and FC 134a to
this list. Therefore, in addition to the eleven nonreactive
VOC’s mentioned in previous guidance, these four CFC’s
should be exluded from ozone SIP emission inventories.

-------
Urban Airshed Model (UAN )
Background
Historically, UAM applications have been Conducted on a case
by case basis. Generally, a consensus agreement is reached
among participating agencies and/or industries regarding
selectjon of modeling episodes. Typically, two to five
prototypical meteorological ep sodes associated with elevated
ozone are used. Future guidance on using UAM in SIP
applications will address this issue.
Q: Explain how the UA}t is used to determine attainment especially
with regard to use of future projected base case emissions as
Opposed to current observed air quality, and to the
determination of the amount of emission reduction needed.
A: Applications of the UAM generally involve a three—step
procedure. First, model performance is evaluated with current
emissions inventory and current air quality data associated
with a current meteorological episode. Second, current
emissions are projected to a future year using growth factors,
which are as category specific as possible, to form a future
base emissions inventory. The UAM is run with this future
base inventory. Third, simulations are run with emissions
control strategies incorporating various control measures
reflecting voc, NOx, and Co emissions changes relative to the
future base inventory. -
Attainment could be demonstrated by a future year emissions
strategy which produces a predicted future year ozone level
at or below the ozone NAAQS for each modeled episode.
Q: Must the States undertake extensive efforts to speciate
emissions in order to apply the UAM?
A: The UAN handles voc composition (speciation) as explicit
inputs in the emission files. In the absence of source
specific speciatjon data, default speciatjon profiles
associated with various source categories may be applied.
These data are compiled in the Air Emissions Speciation
Manual, Volume 1 (EPA—450/2—88—0 056 )
Q: Is UAN sensitive to boundary conditions? What guidance exists
concerning selection of appropriate boundary conditions? Will
ROM1 ET be used in the Northeast u. S. to generate boundary
Conditions?
A: UAN simulations may be affected by poorly characterized
boundary conditions; however, the effect of boundary
concentrations can be mitigated somewhat by expanding the

-------
modeling domain so that the significance of boundary
concentrations are reduced. Data from upwind monitoring
stations not subject to effects from nearby sources of NO
should be used. X
Pgr domains under certain meteorological episodes, output from
Regional Oxidant Model (ROM), which provides a more
comprehensive set of boundary conditions, can be used for U .M
boundary concentrations.
Q: What is the minimum computer hardware requirement to run UAM?
A: Typical applications of UAN have been performed on mainframe
computers; however, minicomputers or enhanced PC equipment
(e.g., microvax) can perform the functions required for most
UAN applications if dedicated for this purpose.
Q: What post processor options/capabilities exist with UAM?
A: Current post processing options in UAN include instantaneous
or average concentration grid maps for selected species at
selected times, peak concentrations at selected locations or
times, and statistical comparisons of predicted and observed
values (gross differences among all pairs or peaks, with or
without temporal constraints - bias).
Q: Summarize the scope and intent of the five-city study
regarding the use of less data intensive UAN applications and
the EKMA versus UAN comparisons.
A: The following major objectives are incorporated in EPA’s
five-city UAM Study: 1) transfer UAN technology to
participating states, 2) assess the impact of alternative,
oxygenated fuels on ambient ozone levels, 3) provide
methodology for applying UAN with routinely available input
data, and 4) evaluate UAN application using routine data
relative to applications using richer data bases. The study
commenced in 1988 and will continue through most of FY-89.
The cities include New York, St. Louis, Dallas/Ft. Worth,
Atlanta, and Philadelphia.
Q: What is EPA’s position regarding use of the UAN versus EKMA?
A: Either model is acceptable for use in SIP attainment
demonstrations. Of the two approaches, the UAN is the
preferred approach. This model has the potential for better
evaluating the effect of detailed control strategies as a
result of its spatial resolution, ability to consider
differing reactivity of VOC emissions, arid more extensive

-------
capability for assessing effects of strategies on factors
other than peak ozone.
Q: What spatial detail is needed for the inventory? How are the
gridded inventory input requirements reconciled with the
irregular shapes of most nonattainment areas?
A: Typical grid square sizes used in the UAN applications range
from 2 to 5 km on a side. Grid squares as large as 8 km on
a side have been used to model a few very large areas. Such
grid sizes should create no particular problems for most point
sources as location of point sources can be identified
precisely. Mobile or area source emissions, which may be
estimated only on a countywide basis need to be suballocated
to the appropriate grid squares. Surrogate information such
as population distribution or VMT data are generally used to
perform this suballocation.

-------
CO SIP Emission Inventory
Q: Over what geographic area must the Co SIP emission inventory
be compiled and is a grid required for the emissions
inventory?
A: Most areas will be required to prepare a Co SIP emissions
inventory for the entire metropolitan statistical area or
consolidated metropolitan statistical area (MSA/CMSA) in
which nonattainmerit of the CO NAAQS was determined. No
county or subcounty with measured or modeled CO violations
may be excluded. In some cases, counties or sub-counties
meeting the following criteria may be excluded from the
MSA/CMSA.
Counties may be excluded only if: (a) the level of
outcoinmuting (workers residing in the county but working in
other counties of the MSA/CMSA) does not exceed 10,000 and
the outcominuting level is projected not to exceed 10,000 for
at least 10 years, and (b) the population of the urbanized
areas in the county does not exceed 50,000 and is projected
not to exceed 50,000 for at least 10 years.
Subcourities (portions of counties) may be excluded if: (a)
the average population density in the excluded area does not
exceed 50 people per square mile and is projected not to
exceed 50 people per square mile for at least 10 years, and
(b) the population of the urbanized areas in the subcounty
does not exceed 50,000 and is projected not to exceed 50,000
in the next 10 years.
The area covered by the emissions inventory must be gridded
unless a modified rollback or proportional model approach
for control strategy demonstrations can be applied under the
limited criteria described in the “Guideline on Air Quality
Models (Revised).” The criteria for approving the
application of a modified rollback or proportional model
approach are: (a) results from screening techniques or
measured carbon monoxide levels in an urban area indicating
that the CO levels are clearly well below the CO NAAQS and
are expected to remain below the CO NAAQS, or (b)
demonstration that the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
will provide the needed CO reductions.
Otherwise, apply either the Urban Airshed Model or RAM Model
for control strategy demonstrations. Both these models
require the emissions inventory to be gridded. The RAN
model allows the sizes of grid squares to vary over the
geographic area being inventoried. Grid square sizes should
not be larger than 1 kilometer for the central business
district (CBD) of urban areas and should not be larger than
5 kilometers for areas outside the CBD. Applications of the

-------
2
Urban Airshed Model for control strategy demonstrations
requires that the grid square size remain constant over the
geographic area being inventoried. The choice of grid
square size for the Urban Airshed Model depends on the size
of the area being modeled, the resources available for
modeling, and the degree of resolution needed to determine
the effects of a particular control strategy. Grid square
sizes up to 5 kilometers are considered acceptable;
although, smaller grid squares sizes of 2 kilometers are
preferred.
Q: Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis. volume 9
( Revised): Evaluating Indirect Sources (Volume 9/CALINE3) is
currently required by EPA for hot spot analysis. Is there a
chance that CALINE4 and TEXIN2 will be approved by EPA for
hot spot analysis over the next couple of years?
A: EPA does not intend to approve either TEXIN2 or CALINE4 for
hot spot analysis over the next couple of years and is
revising the current guidance for hot spot analysis (Volume
9/CALINE3). The Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) has
determined that updating modal emission factors contained in
Volume 9, TEXIN2, and CALINE4 for new vehicles would not be
feasible at this time.
Instead, EPA in conjunction with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is revising the guidance for hot spot
analysis. The new hotspot model will employ the MOBILE4
model for emissions, the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual for
traffic, and the CALINE3 model for dispersion. Thus, the
new model will contain MOBILE4 emission factors, instead of
the emission factors contained in Volume 9, TEXIN2, and
CALINE4.
Q: Few, if any, CO exceedances from highways will occur at wind
speeds of 1 m/s or greater. Will the CALINE3 model be
modified to accommodate wind speeds below 1 m/s?
A: Highway modeling of many areas using CALINE3 has shown CO
exceedances for wind speeds of 1. ni/s or greater. While EPA
agrees that Gaussian models, such as CALINE3, can produce
unrealistically high concentrations for wind speeds of less
than 1 ni/s 1 EPA does not plan to modify CALINE3 to accept
wind speed data below 1 ni/s. The current regulatory
modeling guidance is that the user should not attempt to
input wind speeds of less than 1 rn/s to CALINE3.

-------
3
Q: How do the requirements for a Co SIP emissions inventory
differ from those for the 03 SIP emission inventory and
under what time frame should the inventories be prepared?
A: The requirements for a CO SIP emissions inventory are
independent of the requirements for an 03 SIP emission
inventory but the two inventories may be prepared.
concurrently. The requirements for a CO emissions inventory
for 03 SIPs are contained in the EPA document “Emission
Inventory Requirements for Post-1987 Ozone State
Implementation Plans” and the requirements for a CO
emissions inventory for CO SIPS are contained in the EPA
document “Emission Inventory Requirements for Post—1987
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans.” The major
difference between the two CO inventories is that 03 SIP
emission inventories should reflect summer source activity
while the CO SIP emission inventories should reflect winter
source activity. In addition, the CO inventory for CO SIPs
requires more detail on CO sources than the CO inventory for
03 SIPs. Both the inventories for the base year are due in
November 1989. The final inventories with the complete SIP
packages, including any revisions or additions that result
front the State’s response to EPA’S review of the base year
and the projection year inventories, are due approximately 2
years after EPA issues the final post—1987 03 and CO
policies.

-------
A: EPA intends to allow RFP information for VOC, CO, and to be
reported in a single document. However, States Should keep
in mind that Co data tracked under an ozone SIP will be
different than CO data tracked under a CO SIP.
Q: Should States submit RFP reports which compare current
emissions to the 1979 SIP levels? The models used to generate
the 1979 SIP are no longer available and there is no funding
for regenerating those model results.
A: The 1979 SIP’s had attainment deadlines of 1982 and there
would be no reason to submit an RFP report for a plan with
such data. On the other hand, the 1982 SIP’s had 1987
deadlines, and some States may just now be completing a 1986
or 1987 inventory in preparation for an RFP report. Where
RFP reporting on these plans is a requirement, States should
continue to submit RFP reports using previous RFP guidance or
other guidance issued by the EPA Regional Office until the
post—1987 SIP takes effect.
Q: Will the attainment demonstration be a phased iterative
process?
A: The attainment date or emissions reduction target will not be
determined iteratively. States will be required to show
attainment in the SIP and to complete adoption for all but
the long-term measures needed to attain the NA.AQS and to meet
the annual reduction requirement. States will be allowed
extra time to complete adoption of long—term measures.
Q: Will EPA provide any additional funding to prepare the
emission inventories other than that already committed?
A: In Fl 1989, Congress appropriated $40.7 million in State air
grants to be used for all ozone/CO SIP activities including
inspections, air monitoring, mobile source inventories,
program efficiency, tracking and corrections. Of this amount,
$4.7 million has been earmarked specifically for emission
inventory preparation. The FY 1990 request includes $39.6
million for ozone/CO SIP activities $1.6 million of which is
intended for emission inventory completion. EPA is aware that
this level of funding falls
short of the total needed to complete the work in many areas,
and is continuing to work with 0MB in an effort to secure more
funds.

-------
Inventory Requirements
Q: Will EPA provide any Section 105 grant money to local
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for the collection
of transportation data?
A: In 1982, EPA provided MPOs with funding under Section 175 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) to complete ozone and Co SIPs. This
funding mechanism is not presently available. Therefore,
States that wish to solicit the expertise of their local MPOs
in collecting data should delegate some of their Section 105
funds to be used for that purpose.
Q: Should States assume a strict interpretation of the 25—mile
buffer zone, meaning that all sources in the >100 tpy category
located less than 25.0 miles from the nonattainment area
should be inventoried, or could the 25—mile limit be rounded
up or down to the nearest county or township boundary?
A: The purpose for the 25-mile requirement is to include in the
inventory large sources lying outside the CMSA/MSA that may
contribute to the nonattainment problem. States may use their
discretion to judge whether to extend the 25—mile buffer zone
to the nearest county or township boundary, but all sources
emitting >100 tpy within 25 miles of the MSA/CMSA should be
included in the inventory.
Q: By including only sources emitting >100 tpy in the 25-mile
buffer zone, is EPA missing an even more significant source,
namely mobile sources, in the buffer zone?
A: EPA has not required that mobile sources in the buffer zone
be included in the inventory because most mobile source
activity is found in the MSA/CMSA. If a State judges that
mobile source activity in the 25-mile buffer zone (or any
other area outside the MSA/CMSA) contributes significantly to
the nonattainment problem, those emissions should be included
in the inventory.
Q: Who has the responsibility for reporting interstate emissions?
Sh uld they be included in the base year inventory?
A: Interstate emissions should be determined by a cooperative
effort among the planning agencies within whose jurisdiction
the nonattaininent area lies. The agency responsible for
determining emissions from the broadest geographic area should
take the lead in assembling the emissions data submitted by
the other agencies. EPA Regional Offices will assist in
facilitating this effort, where necessary.
Q: What should be the base year for the inventory?

-------
A: EPA requires a base year of 1987 or 1988, the choice of which
is left to the discretion of the State.
Q: How should emissions from intermittent sources be factored
into the base year inventory representing typical summertime
weekday emissions?
A: In determining whether to report intermittent emissions in
the inventory, the State agency should solicit the appropriate
Regional Office for a decision on a case—by-case basis. The
decision should consider whether the intermittent source(s)
produced emissions during a typical base year ozone season
weekday.
Q: Should the inventory include emissions from a source that does
not operate because of a strike during the ozone season in the
base year?
A: The State should contact the appropriate Regional Office about
such a source and solicit a decision on a case—by—case basis.
If the emissions do not appear in the base year inventory, but
the plant is expected to begin operation again in the near
future, States should include emissions from this source in
the future year inventory.
Q: Is the requirement to inventory point sources down to 10 tpy
warranted considering the imprecision associated with
stationary area source and mobile source emission estimations?
A: EPA believes that imprecision in a portion of the inventory
is not sufficient reason for not documenting the activity
levels and emissions of individual >10 tpy sources. Many of
these >10 tpy point sources are, or will be, subject to
control regulations. Source specific emission data in the
inventory are necessary to assess the effectiveness of these
regulations or the need for further emission control.
Q: How much more of the emissions will be included in the point
source portion of the inventory by reducing the point source
emissions cutoff from 100 to 10 tpy?
A: Preliminary assessments have indicated that about 20 percent
more emissions could be included in the point source category
by reducing the cutoff to 10 tpy. EPA expects this estimate
is conservative because of the limitations of the available
data bases.
Q: If States find it impossible to meet the inventory
requirements, will EPA accept a less detailed inventory or
extend the deadline for submittal?

-------
A: EPA is not considering relaxing the inventory requirements
nor extending the deadline for inventory submittal. States
should negotiate with the appropriate Regional Office to
address individual problems.

-------
Rule Effectiveness
Q: Why is rule effectiveness an important consideration for ozone
and CO, but not for PM 10 or SO 2 ?
A: Rule effectiveness is an important factor to consider when
the nature of the regulatory program is such that full
compliance at all sources at all times cannot be assured.
This is the case for the VOC and CO programs because of the
small size, large number, and relative complexity of most
regulated sources. For example, one of the largest components
of both the VOC and CO control programs is the mobile source
emission controls program. Given the difficulties in ensuring
full compliance for every automobile, application of a rule
effectiveness factor becomes important in estimating the
effectiveness of the local inspection/maintenance program.
The SO 2 control program does not presently account for rule
effectiveness and probably will not in the near future, given
the maturity of the SO 2 program relative to the VOC control
program. The PM 10 program is still under development and
application of a rule effectiveness factor may be considered
before completion.
Q: Why did EPA propose 80 percent for rule effectiveness?
A: Rule effectiveness has not been considered in preparing
inventories prior to the post-1987 SIP policy. The previous
inventory data reflected an assumption that all regulations
were implemented with 100 percent effectiveness. In proposing
the post-1987 policy, EPA determined the need to apply a more
realistic rule effectiveness factor in a nationally
consistent, yet fair manner. EPA chose 80 percent as a
representative estimate of the average effectiveness values
after surveying selected State and local personnel on the
perceived effectiveness of their regulatory programs for a
wide range of source categories.
Q: Rule effectiveness is really an enforcement issue and should
not be applied in the planning process.
A: The determination of how well a regulatory program is
achieving the intended emission reductions is certainly a
major task for enforcement personnel and one to which EPA’S
Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) is paying
particular attention. The application of rule effectiveness
in preparing the emissions inventory is necessary because the
effectiveness of existing regulations is directly related to
emissions levels. Rule effectiveness must also be considered
in planning for the expected effect of future regulations.
The 80 percent value is intended to be an initial estimate for

-------
inventory purposes only and is to be replaced as the more
detailed category-specific SSCD evaluations are completed in
each local area.
Q: Would the -80 percent rule effectiveness factor be applied for
a source if the source’s emissions data were obtained through
a survey?
A: The 80 percent rule effectiveness factor would be applied if
the emissions data were determined using emission factors,
results of emission tests, or estimated control efficiencies,
even If such data were obtained from of survey of the source.
If emissions data are determined from solvent usage records
(see next question), then a rule effectiveness factor of 100
percent might be applied.
Q: Would a rule effectiveness factor of 100 percent be applied
if the source’s emissions data were obtained directly from
solvent usage records? What detail is required for these
records?
A: A rule effectiveness factor of 100 percent may be applicable
in some cases. A direct determination of emissions made upon
an evaluation of solvent usage records kept at the source is
one of these cases. The data needed for direct determination
include volume and density of solvent, coating, or ink used
at the plant over an extended representative period of time
(e.g., a month during the peak ozone season); solvent content
of each coating or ink used; and volume and density of all
other solvents used at the plant.
Q: Would the 80 percent rule effectiveness factor be applied if
the emissions data are obtained by means of a stack test or
a capture efficiency test?
A: Emission data from stack tests, even if combined with capture
efficiency tests, do not provide assurance of compliance over
time and, therefore, would not be a basis for exempting a
source from the application of the 80 percent rule
effectiveness factor.
Q: For what conditions is a rule penetration factor applied?
A: A rule penetration factor is an estimation of the extent to
which emissions from a source category (typically area source
categories) are affected by a regulation. A penetration
factor should be applied to any source category for which
emissions have been determined by means of a “top-down”
approach rather than on a source-by-source basis. “Top-down”
refers to the use of data collected for a large area, such as

-------
a State or the nation, then allocated to a smaller area on the
basis of population, geographic area, local activity levels,
etc.
/ Q: Control equipment downtime must be considered in preparing
the emission inventory. The traditional approach is to survey
source personnel, ask for estimates of the control equipment
downtime for their specific sources, and apply the estimate
in calculating the average emissions. Is the rule
effectiveness factor intended to account for control equipment
downtime or should States continue to account for control
equipment downtime separately?
A: Application of the rule effectiveness factor in estimating
emission rates is a reasonable substitute for a separate
accounting of control equipment downtime. Both the 80 percent
default value and the local category-specific rule
effectiveness factors (above or below 80 percent) account for
the likelihood of control equipment failure of upsets.
Q: Applying rule effectiveness in the base year inventory will
cause a significant increase in the estimated emissions. Will
such application artificially inflate the overall inventory?
A: The application of rule effectiveness for emissions from
regulated stationary sources is intended to provide an
improved estimation of the actual emissions occurring as a
result of the real effect of regulatory programs. (A rule
effectiveness factor is already included in the mobile source
controls model. The mobile source part of the inventory will
not be affected by the application of rule effectiveness to
the stationary source emissions estimations.) EPA believes
that application of the rule effectiveness factor is not an
artificial inflation of the inventory, but a necessary
adjustment for emission estimations.
Q: What time of day was considered in comparing the monitored
NNOC/NOX ratios to the ratios predicted by the emissions
inventory?
A: EPA examined an Urban Airshed Model analysis of a selected
area to determine the approximate correlation between the
annual inventory and emissions that would be likely to occur
between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. Then, the annual inventories for
the nonattainment areas were scaled down to represent the 6:00
to 9:00 a.m. period for which NNOC/NOX ratios were monitored.
These two ratios were compared.
Q: Is the discrepancy between monitored and inventoried NI4OC/NOX
ratios entirely attributable to ineffectiveness of the
regulatory programs?

-------
A: Ineffective regulations are not the only reason for the
discrepancy. Other reasons may include the absence of certain
sources or entire source categories from the inventory (such
as TSDF’s and POTW’s), incomplete source data, the absence of
running loss emissions from the mobile model, and spatial
distributions of the inventory relative to the ambient NMOC
monitors.
Q: Should the results obtained from standardized questionnaires
used in determining a local category—specific rule
effectiveness factor be weighted according to emissions levels
in order to avoid skewing the factor in favor of small sources
that are not inspected very often?
A: EPA does not intend that the results of the questionnaires be
weighted according to emissions. The State or local agency
should select sources for the application of the questionnaire
randomly so that the sources for which questionnaires are
completed is representative of the size distribution of
sources in each source category.
Q: Could a source use the rule effectiveness factor to apply for
an increase in allowable emissions or as a new baseline for
an emissions trade?
A: No. Rule effectiveness is intended to assist planning
agencies in deriving an inventory of actual emissions. The
factors used in the inventory have no regulatory consequences
and cannot be used for the above purposes.
Q: Can improvements in rule effectiveness be credited toward
required emission reductions?
A: Improvements in rule effectiveness that can be quantified and
enforced can be credited toward strategy and annual percent
reduction requirements.

-------
Stationary Source Procedures and Recuirentents Issues
Q: Can service stations be excluded from the volatile organic
compound (VOC) point source inventory?
A: All service stations and commercial dry cleaning operations
may be excluded from the point source inventory, unless the
agency compiling the inventory chooses to inventory these
sources individually. Any of these sources not included in
the point source inventory must be included in the area
source inventory.
Q: Are NO emission estimates required in the emission
inventories for 0 nonattainment areas that do not
anticipate NO emissions reductions as part of their 03
attainment strategy?
A: Yes. Estimates of NO emissions from point and area sources
are required regardless of whether NOX reductions are a part
of the 03 control strategy. However, more information is
required in the inventory for areas that anticipate NO
control. These areas must provide detailed process aná
emissions data for each NO point source, while areas that
do not anticipate NO control as part of the strategy are
required to report only a list of major NO point sources
and the total emission estimate for each.
Q: Will the SAN PC system be able to handle mobile source
emissions data?
A: SAN currently allows entry of emissions totals by county for
various types of mobile sources. A SAM module is being
developed to allow entry and retrieval of the data that are
used to estimate emissions from highway vehicles (MOBILE4
inputs and outputs, vehicle miles traveled, etc.).
Q: Does EPA prefer use of the SAN PC system for submittal of
the emission inventories?
A: Yes. EPA is strongly encouraging use of this system because
SAN provides a consistent format for compilation, submittal
and review of the inventories. Routines for automatic
calculations, edit checking, report generation, data
tracking, and data analysis that are being prepared for
addition to the system will make the task of inventory
analysis and review an easier one and make inventories more
complete and accurate.

-------
Q: Should exnissions be reported in pounds/day or tons/day?
A: Individual point source emissions should be reported in
pounds/day while emissions summaries (by source category)
should be reported in tons/day.

-------
_____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY r
.VASH!NGTOt: DC 20.60
PN 172-88-11-04-068
NOV 4 988
O FPC or
GENERAL COUNSEl.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Authority to Request Changes in RACT Rules
FROM: Erica Rosenberg, Attorney €
Air and Radiation Division (LE-132A)
THRU: Richard B. Ossias
Acting Assistant 9 eral Counsel
Air and Radiation Division (LE-132A)
TO: G. Torn Helms
Chief
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Program Branch, OAQPS (MD-15)
Background
In late May and early June 1988, EPA issued SIP calls to 43
states. Several states have questioned EPA’s legal authority to
require changes to RACT rules that the Agency has already
approved. This responds to your request for a memorandwn
discussing our legal authority to request these changes.
IS i sCU sajon
Section 110(a) (2) (H) authorizes the Administrator to issue
calls for revisions of an approved SIP if the plan is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS that it implements
or “to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.” In accordance with this
provision, EPA issued letters to several states, calling for
revisions to their SIPs. The requested revisions were of two
varieties. First, the letters called for corrective rulemaking
where EPA had erroneously or inadvertently approved rules that
did not comport with the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs)
and other Agency RACT guidance. These revisions do not change
the presumption of what constitutes RACT. Rather, they require
proper implementation of what EPA originally identified as RACT.
Since the RACT requirement appears in Section 172(b) (3), which
Congress added to the Act in 1977, correction of the deviations
falls squarely within the provision calling for revisions to
comply with requirements of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.

-------
—2—
That same provision also makes it clear that the RACT and other
requirements of the 1977 Amendments continue to apply even after
SIPs are approved as in compliance with those Amendments. OGC
reached a similar conclusion with respect to renewal of NPDES
permits that had been issued in compliance with the 1977
Amendments to the Clean Water Act. See Memorandum, from
Associate General Counsel for Water and Solid Waste Division to
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement, “Request
for a Legal Opinion -- Inclusion of Compliance Schedules in
Second Round Permits and Newly Issued Permits” (December 26.
1978).
Second, EPA requested that states conform their rules to
the clarification of presumptive RACT in its comprehensive
guidance document of May 1988. When EPA iBsued its original
guidance on RACT (contained in memoranda and CTGs), a number of
topics for some source categories (e.g., applicability levels)
were not addressed. As EPA and the States implemented the R.ACT
rules, unanticipated questions about these areas arose. In many
cases, EPA issued clarifying guidance as the issues arose, but
did not necessarily require revision of already approved SIP
provisions. In other cases, guidance was never produced.
Therefore, to ensure consistency in VOC rules and to correct
problems that were being widely experienced, EPA issued guidance
in May 1988. This clarified agency policy that was previously
vague, ambiguous, or simply unstated. Thus, while the first set
of corrections (those where EPA erroneously or inadvertently
approved insufficient rules) focuses on deviations from EPA’S
long-standing presumptive definition of RACT, this second set of
corrections focuses on EPA’s clarification of presumptive RACT.
Because these requirements are grounded in the same R.ACT
requirements of the 1977 Amendments, however, these corrections
too comport with the provisions for SIP calls.
Beyond that, nothing in the Act’s language or history
suggests that EPA is bound forever to its initial interpretation
of the Part D RACT requirement. In Chevron USA v. NRDC , 467
U.S. 837 (1984), the Supreme Court upheld EPA’s reinterpretation
of a statutory term (the definition of “source” for purposes of
the new source review program mandated by Part D) on the ground
that the new interpretation reflected a reasonable accommodation
with the purposes of the statute. That decision suggests that
even a major reinterpretation of the RACT requirement would be
permissible, notwithstanding that it would trigger a requirement
for revisions to SIPs previously approved under the initial
interpretation.
Since EPA’s statements of R.ACT are only presumptive,
states may rebut the new presumption of RACT on a case—by case
basis. Any final change in RACT rules would have to go through
notice—and—comment rulemaking, which would occur when EPA takes

-------
—3—
action on the state’s response to the SIP call. In this regard.
SIP calls serve merely as advance notice of, rather than final
action on, a change from EPA’s past rulemakings on state RACT
rules.
cc: John Calcagni
Alan Eckert
Air Branch Chief, Regions I—X

-------
PN 172-88-12-16—067
Vola
Jo ’ Calcagn.L,
Ai Quality
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DEC c
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: (VOC) Disposal Regulation
FROM:
Division
TO: Irwin L. Dickstejn, Director
Air and Toxics Division, Region VIII
In your memorandum of November 16, 1988, you requested
guidance on the intended applicability of the VOC general
disposal regulation contained in the EPA document “Regulatory
Guidance for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
15 Categories of Stationary Sources” (EPA-905/2—78-oOl).
The model regulation for VOC waste disposal, which limited
VOC emissions to 1.5 gallons per day in ozone nonattainment
areas, was not originally intended to be applied generically
across all source categories. This provision was based on
California rule 66.2 to prohibit improper disposal of reactive
VOC’s. It was intended to apply only to those source categories
(e.g., degreasing and certain petroleum marketing operations)
whose control techniques guidelines include specific provisions
for VOC waste disposal. Although such provisions for other
source categories are encouraged, they are not essential to an
approvable State implementation plan. My memorandum dated
November 13, 1978 (attached) is Consistent with this guidance.
A State or local agency, however, should examine each VOC
disposal situation on an individual basis. Where VOC emissions
from waste disposal may be significant, the State or local agency
should consider limiting VOC emissions in a manner consistent
with the model regulation for VOC waste disposal, if appropriate.

-------
2
If you have any other questions, please call John Silvasi
(FTS 629—5666) or David Cole (FTS—629—5497) of my staff.
Attachment
cc: Director, Air Division, Regions I-Vu, IX, X
Regional VOC Contacts
P. Helms
J. Silvasi
B. Poiglase
S. Holman
D. Cole

-------
- ‘ f Mr CL’ 1 Zy Pla.i,i1 g d
: NZe3I-cb Tr ry] cr:h Carol ir 277fl
‘_:- t: o 1 l ttcr fcr VOC

. .,o’ r nc:1, ? J (!— )
‘S r. 1th, Chief
:r ?rr ra.ich, Ra 1cn IV
This s 1t1 r ar to ycur ce .o on ste dispcsal re lat1or
for VG. , I dlscuss d wJt r. tc’1as Coot, t n1ess w te ‘ i ts l
rrrn3 3n5 are ixp 1cit1y clud d 1 th otr 1—chn. 1 ., ili e
(CT ) for a Source cetegor:, 5:a:es r.Eed not adopt prcv1 icns for these
‘ C c 5ssio . I o w1 t nct that CTCs 1cr r a ir .j an
:. r ctin; opert.tjc,;s do i;1 d, speci1jc ‘rcvjsjo r 13t1ons
:r t se c te rjes s culd athiress thi: in their re ulations for thase
:;ir catecor1 s.
T;-. a ar nt 5o ircc of tie CCnf :1or on this ls3 ! is t e sa r,12
PX re ul tjc prE .ared for e 1on V by C VT chno1o y D vI 1on. This
c e t i c1uded a e er1c VCC d sposa1 provision . a ad or C lif rnja’s
r i 5.2 th1ch prohibited 1: r er disposal of reactive ‘/X. t .Thfle
rovis1on of t -.1s nat ro Is C: n’ a 1e, it Is not cs nti. l to an
rrrov&ble SIP. te s ct.1 apprcv! ar,y tatc subrittal jth
w s( . c osa1 prov1s on a rd not discourage State: frc lnclu ing s c i
FoVLsion. but it: e c1u:jon is ; ot a basis for d sa royal.
tS th c 1::i n ra 1t:, ti St:ta :‘- ul’i t t CT
: r: r erl .’ d1 po of :1nc ‘ :te dI;po: i ro/ ion arc
Diic1i1y ir ciud r. z: CT.s ar’ should r o e a jor rc ie’ 1r
,Z dditi al cre t c r b c1ai only th2re th2 . te c
: r.e. t a. ditional re uctior In c ssion frc s:urce c: pl-’I g
—it- ch a r ) :ic .
If YDLI a:y cthor estlon please !o not hesitate to call
• t FT 62 —S2 5.
luerk
0. 3. Borjiers
t:. Fast
3. ) .ihr z
1. Artico
. Canp5el]
.

-------
PN 172-88-12-01-066
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
. \IL4../ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1 DEC 19R9
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RACT Requirements in Ozone Nonattainment Areas
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-b)
TO: William A. Spratlin, Director
Air and Toxics Division, Region VII
This is in response to your memorandum of October 12, 1988
concerning reasonably available control technology (RACT)
requirements for automobile assembly plants in ozone
nonattainment areas.
We agree that automobile assembly plants in ozone
nonattainment areas should have volatile organic compound
emission requirements that are at least as stringent as RACT. 1
As described below, the requirements for new source performance
standards (NSPS) or lowest available emission rate (LAER) (as
determined at the time of permit issuance) for two plants in the
St. Louis area may not be as stringent as RACT. Therefore, the
St. Louis State implementation plan should contain RACT
requirements for these plants.
There are important differences in the format and compliance
demonstration methodology for automobile coating RACT and NSPS.
Topcoat and surfacer RACT require daily averaging and actual
transfer efficiency, while the NSPS allows monthly averaging and
table transfer efficiency values. These differences may result
in RACT being more stringent than NSPS. The OAQPS recommends
that the June 1988 protocol be used as the basis for determining
compliance with the RACT limit.
The Ford Hazeiwood plant is subject to NSPS and RACT. The
State has proposed to delete the RACT requirements for Ford
Hazeiwood on the basis that the NSPS is more stringent. This
claim is not correct. Therefore, the RACT requirements for Ford
Hazelwood should not be deleted, rather they should be maintained
‘For this discussion, RACT for topcoat means an appropriate
emission limit for which compliance is demonstrated on a daily
basis using the June 1988 protocol. For surfacer, the RACT
requirement should also specify daily compliance and actual
transfer efficiency.

-------
2
and the June 1988 protocol adopted as the compliance
determination procedure.
The GM Wentzville plant was permitted as a new source in the
early 1980’s. This source is subject to NSPS and LAER, which was
set equal to NSPS for topcoat and surfacer. Since the St. Louis
RACT requirements for automobile coating were source specific and
the GM Wentzville plant did not exist when the RACT requirements
were first adopted, there are currently no RACT requirements for
this plant. The NSPS and LAER requirements for this plant may
not be as stringent as RACT. Therefore, RACT requirements should
be adopted for GM Wentzville.
Thank you for bringing this situation to our attention.
Questions concerning this matter should be addressed to
Bill Polgiase (629—5246) or Dave Salman (629—5417).
cc: J. Calcagni
R. Campbell
T. Helms
J. Berry
D. Salman
G. McCutchen
D. Crumpler
B. Polgiase
J. Silvasi
Director, Air Management Div., Regions I, III, V, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Regions IV, VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Compliance Branch, Regions IV, V
Chief, Air Enforcement Branch, Region III
Chief, Air Operations Branch, Region IX

-------
PN 172—88—11—04-065
I €
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
cY WASHINGTON D C 2046C
NOV 4 1988
orr ,cc or
GCI (RAL COUNS(L
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Authority to Request Changes in RACT Rules
FROM: Erica Rosenberg, Attorney € ‘
Air and Radiation Division (LE—i.32A)
THRU: Richard B. Ossias
Acting Assistant 9 eral Counsel
Air and Radiation Division ftE-132A)
TO: G. Tom Helms
Chief
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Program Branch, OAQPS (MD—15)
Background
In late May and early June 1988, EPA issued SIP calls to 43
states. Several states have questioned EPA’s legal authority to
require changes to RACT rules that the Agency has already
approved. This responds to your request for a memorandum
discussing our legal authority to request these changes.
Section 110(a) (2) (H) authorizes the Administrator to issue
calls for revisions of an approved si if the plan is
substantially inadequate to attain the NA.AQS that it implements
or “to otherwise comply with any additional requirements under
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.” In accordance with this
provision, EPA issued letters to several states, calling for
revisions to their SIPs. The requested revisions were of two
varieties. First, the letters called for corrective rulemaking
where EPA had erroneously or inadvertently approved rules that
did not comport with the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs)
and other Agency RACT guidance. These revisions do not change
the presumption of what constitutes RACT. Rather, they require
proper implementation of what EPA originally identified as RACT.
Since the RACT requirement appears in Section 172(b) (3), which
Congress added to the Act in 1977, correction of the deviations
falls squarely within the provision calling for revisions to
comply with requirements of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.

-------
—2—
That same provision also makes it clear that the RACT and other
requirements of the 1977 Amendments continue to apply even after
SIPs are approved as in compliance with those Amendments. OGC
reached a similar conclusion with respect to renewal of NPDES
permits that had been issued in compliance with the 1977
Amendments to the Clean Water Act. See Memorandum, from
Associate General Counsel for Water and Solid Waste Division to
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement, “Request
for a Legal Opinion —- Inclusion of Compliance Schedules in
Second Round Permits and Newly Issued Permits” (December 26,
1978).
Second, EPA requested that states conform their rules to
the clarification of presumptive RACT in its comprehensive
guidance document of May 1988. When EPA issued its original
guidance on RACT (contained in memoranda and CTGs), a number of
topics for some source categories (e.g., applicability levels)
were not addressed. As EPA and the States implemented the RACT
rules, unanticipated questions about these areas arose. In many
cases, EPA issued clarifying guidance as the issues arose, but
did not necessarily require revision of already approved SIP
provisions. In other cases, guidance was never produced.
Therefore, to ensure consistency in VOC rules and to correct
problems that were being widely experienced, EPA issued guidance
in May 1988. This clarified agency policy that was previously
vague, ambiguous, or simply unstated. Thus, while the first set
of corrections (those where EPA erroneously or inadvertently
approved insufficient rules) focuses on deviations from EPA’S
long-standing presumptive definition of R.ACT, this second set of
corrections focuses on EPA’S clarification of presumptive RACT.
Because these requirements are grounded in the same RACT
requirements of the 1977 Amendments, however, these corrections
too comport with the provisions for SIP calls.
Beyond that, nothing in the Act’s language or history
suggests that EPA is bound forever to its initial interpretation
of the Part D RACT requirement. In Chevron USA v. NRDC , 467
U.S. 837 (1984), the Supreme Court upheld EPA’s reinterpretation
of a statutory term (the definition of “source” for purposes of
the new source review program mandated by Part D) on the ground
that the new interpretation reflected a reasonable accommodation
with the purposes of the statute. That decision suggests that
even a major reinterpretation of the RACT requirement would be
permissible, notwithstanding that it would trigger a requirement
for revisions to SIPs previously approved under the initial
interpretation.
Since EPA’s statements of RACT are only presumptive,
states may rebut the new presumption of RACT on a case—by case
basis. Any final change in RACT rules would have to go through
notice—and-comment rulemaking, which would occur when EPA takes

-------
—3—
action on the state’s response to the SIP call. In this regard,
SIP calls serve merely as advance notice of, rather than final
action on, a change froni EPA’s past rulemakings on state RACT
rules.
cc: John Calcagni
Alan Eckert
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X

-------
PN 172—88—09—07—064
In order to conserve space, the Federal Register notice
entitled:
Air Programs; Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans Compliance with the
Statutory Provisions of Part D and Section
110 of the Clean Air Act (53 FR 34500,
September 7, 1988)
is not included in the Air Programs Policy and Guidance
Notebook. Please refer to this notice for EPA
policy/guidance related to this subject.

-------
PN 172-88-08-23-063
to s. 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I r — Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
23 AUG 1988
Mr. William Juris
Division of Air Pollution Control
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
ColumDus, Ohio 43266-0149
Dear Mr. Juris:
Thank you for your letter of June 28: 1988 requesting clarification
of the 3 lb/hr;15 lb/day emission cutoff tor volatile organic compound
(VOC) sources subject to control technique guideline (CTG) requirements.
I apologize for our delay in responding. With regard to that issue, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document “Issues Relatiny to VOC
Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” dated May 25, 1988
supersedes my previous memorandum dated November 4, 1987 on emission
cutoffs. Our responses to your questions are provided below in the order
you raised them.
1. The purpose of the 3 lb/hr, lb lb/day recorTunendation is to provide
national consistency in determining the applicability of reasonably
available control technolo jy (RACT) for those stationary source categories
that are not otherwise covered by more specific EPA guidance. The
cutoff applies only to emissions from multiple operations within the
same CTG category, not individual sources. The May 1988 VOC guidance
on emission cutoffs restates the fact tnat the level ot emissions is
determined by adding the individual emission sources within the same
GIG category. In evaluating whether a source is covered by the RACT
regulation, the source size cutoff should be determined on a plantwide
basis, not a line—by-line basis. Otherwise, an ozone SIP would not
actually realize as much VOC emission reauction credit for controlling
RACT operations within a given CTG category as originally intended.
2. “Potential emissions before control” means as you described it,
“potential emissions without any current control devices.” In response
to the second part of your question, the term “control devices” does
not include material recovery operations essential for the economic
operation of the source it they are part of the process. In some
cases, nowever, such a determination may not be clearcut arid would
require a decision by the State or local agency in consultation with
the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
3. A plant owner or operator should Only use the l lb/day limit
(not 72 lb/day) as a cutoff for determining potential coverage by a
particular RACT rule. A RACI evaluation should be made for sources
covered by CTG categories if plantwide emissions of VtJC exceed 1’i pounds
( t I1l--o-j7-o i

-------
2
in any one day and EPA has not previously sped tied a different cutoff
size. The RACT as specified in the GIG is then presumed to apply unless
a “case-by-case” determination proves otherwise.
4. The May 19 8 VOC compilation of guidance specifies triat the 3 lb/hr,
15 lb/day cutoffs are based on actual emissions before add-on control.
As previously mentioned, the May document supersedes my memorandum of
November 4, 1987. The decision to specify actual emissions was based
on input that we received in meetings with representatives from the
EPA Regional Offices and several State air pollution control agencies.
The term “before add—on control” is used to indicate emission levels
in the absence of VOC control devices currently in place. The term
“before control” does not apply toconditiOnS before process changes or
product reformulation, but only refers to the addition of air pollution
control equipment, such as incineration or carbon adsorption systems.
me “lu-ton per year” potential emissions cutoff recommendation for
certain coatings categories was based on a recent survey of State air
pollution control agency regulations. In that survey, we reviewed
all of the emission limits that had established cutoff levels for
certain VOC categories where no EPA guidance had previously been
specified. This “10—ton” number was selected based upon the cutoffs
tnat a number of other State agencies were using.
I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any additional
questions pertaining to these VOC issues, please call John Si Ivasi at
(919)541-5666 or David Cole at (919)541—s497.
Si ncerely,
G. I. Helms
Chief
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Proyrams l ranch

-------
PN 172_88 -06-21-062
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air QuaI ty Planning and Standards
_____ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
4(
JUN 21 198
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Automobile T 0 Pr col
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Direc
Office of Air Quality annin an Standards (MO—lO)
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, and IX
Mr and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VU, VIII , and X
Attached are copies of the ‘Protocol for Determining the Daily Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Rate of Automobile and Light—Duty Truck Topcoat
Operations.K This protocol was referenced on page 2—22 of the May 25, *
1988, guidance on VOC issues (“Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints.
Deficiencies and Deviations”). The EPA developed this protocol with the
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) and its member companies,
with additional input from other automobile manufacturers, coating suppliers,
and State and local agencies.
The purpose of the protocol is to provide a uniform procedure for
calculating daily compliance of topcoat operations when transfer efficiency
is being employed as one of the emission reduction techniques permitted
under the relevant ozone SIP regulation. The protocol should also be
used as the compliance demonstration procedure for future topcoat BACT or
LAER determinations. The protocol should be considered for use with
previous BACT or LAER determinations which require daily compliance
demonstrations and actual transfer efficiency values, but do not specify
all the necessary test methods and procedures.
- f)rJ i .. -

-------
2
The SIP’s should be revised to require owner/operator use of the
protocol to demonstrate compliance with automobile and light—duty truck
topcoat PACT regulations. In order to be amenable to use of the protocol, -
a SIP must: (1) state the topcoat emission limit in units of pounds of VOC
per gallon of solids deposited, (2) require that compliance be demonstrated
for each day, and (3) treat the entire topcoat operation (all topcoat
spray booths, flash-off areas, and bake ovens) as a single entity. Each
SIP must also include provisions for retaining records, completing calculations
in a timely manner, and reporting results consistent with proper implementation
of the protocol and applicable EPA policies and guidelines. The owner/operator
should generally be capable of completing the emission calculations for
each day in a month by the end of the following month. Proper adoption
and use of the protocol should eliminate disputes about averaging, transfer
efficiency and bake oven exhaust control credits, m and the VOC and
volume solids content of coatings.
It may require as much as 18 to 24 months to amend existing regulations
and obtain final Federal approval of the SIP revisions. Until final EPA
approval of SIP revisions is obtained, the current regulations remain
applicable and are to be interpreted in accordance with letters to the
MVMA from Craig Potter on November 20, 1986, and from Alan Eckert on
December 23, 1986. Copies of these letters are attached.
Please forward a copy of the protocol to your State air directors as
an addendum to your recent follow-up letters on VOC deficiencies and
deviations, We will be providing additional information and support in
the near future to enable States to effectively implement the protocol.
Questions about the protocol should be directed to Dave Salman at
FIS 629-5417.
3 Attachments
cc: Mike Alushin (LE—134A)
John Calcagni (MD—15)
Alan Eckert (LE—132A)
Jack Farmer (MD-13)
John Seitz (EFI_341)

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ iim ’ WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
DEC 2 3 1986
O,,ICE O
3C, SA COUNSEl.
Mr. William H. Crabtree
Vie. President and
General Counsel
Motor Vehicle Manufacturer. Association
of the United States, Inc.
300 sw Csntsr Building
Detroit, Michigan 48202
Dear Mr. Crabtrees
In a November 20, 1986, iett.r to Dr. Fred W. Bowditch of•
MVtIA, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, .
Craig Potter, responded to several questions that MVMA
representatives had posed about EPA’s interpretation of state
implementation plan (SIP) requirements affecting auto coating
processes. Subsequently, some MVMA members inquired whether
EPA regards the letter as “final action” of the Administrator
within the meaning of the judicial review provision of the
Clean Air Act (section 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1)), and
asked what effect the letter will have on the actions of EPA
compliance personnel now and in the future.
EPA does not regard the November 20 letter as ‘final
action” within the meaning of section 307(b)(l). Rather, the
letter contains preliminary guidance from the Assistant
Administrator to EPA personnel on how they initially should
approach these issues in individual IP rulemakings end
•nforeement actions. The letter will not bind EPA personnel in
those proceedings. It is not intended to be a statement of
final Agency interpretation of SIP provisions either for
pr...nt or future purposes. Instead. EPA’a interpretation will
take place in those later proceedings based on all relevant
factors. Moreover, nothing in the letter should be conetrued
so a. to add to or otherwise modify existing SIP requirements.
Finally, both for these reasons and becaucs in any event
the letter was not published in the Federal Reaister , the
sixty—day petition period referred tin section 307(b)(l) does
not apply to the letter.

-------
—2—
In short, affected MVMA members will have an opportunity
for udicia1, review of EPA’s interpretations of individual SIP
provisions once PA makes those interpretations final. Please
let us know if we can be of any further assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely.
lan W. Ecke t
Associate General Counsel
Air and Radiation Diviaion
(LE l32? )
ccz Michael Aluahin
Don Clay
Gerald Emison
1ack Farmer
oe Lees
Craig Pott.r
Air Division Directors, Recions I—X
Regional Counsel, Pegiona I-X

-------
2 0 NOV 1986
Or. Fred W. BowditcPl
Vice President, Technical Affairs
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
of the United States, Inc.
300 New Center Building
Detroit, Michigan 4 2U2
Dear Dr. Bowditch:
This is in response to your letter of AuguSt 6, 19db, and your meetings
with members of my staff in Durham, North Carolina, on September 10, 1986
and November 3, 19db. At the meetings, four basic compliance parameters for
automobile coating regulations were discussed: (1) transfer efficiency
(TE), (2) volatile organic compound (VOC) content of paint, (3) booth-oven
split, and (4) averaging time. Our position on each of tnese parameters is
provided in the enclosure.
We recognize and appreciate all of the concerns raised by the MYMA,
and have considered them carefully in developing our position. We also
appreciate the MVMA’s offer to work with us to evaluate procedures to
measure TE and booth—oven split. Mr. Jack Farmer will call you within
the next week to discuss how we can move quickly to begin thiS effort.
I kn from our discussions that you recognize that many major
metropolitan areas will not attain the national ambient air quality standard
for ozone by the statutory deadline of December 31, 19d7. The problem is
so severe in some areas that attainment is unlikely for many years after
I 7. On June 23, 1986, the Administrator announced a comprehensive national
strategy to deal with this problem. The announcement included the goals
the strategy Should strive for and listed specific actions for accomplishing
the goals. One action involves improving tne eftectivenesS of existing
regulations and programs, which have not been implemented or enforced
consistently across the country, so that progress towards attainment can be
accelerated. The position we are outlining in this letter is consistent
with our national strategy for the post-198 7 ozone program. As a result,
it provides for a scientifically credible approach without interfering with
progress toward attaining tneozone standard.
In developing our position, we had to deal with two major concerns.
(1) hOw to implement tne cnanges tnat will be required, and (2) wfl8t
actions snoulo De taken during tne interim period before tne necessary
changes are adopted in the State implementation plans (SIP’s). In
response to the first concern, we intend to take SIP deficiency actions
in the 1987-198a time frame. We will require tnat States take appropriate
action on compliance parameters for automobile surface coatings as part

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2
of tMSI .ctl.ss. I a ?WpIUI ti t I SCISd CO.C. a, wit I •af14ca t s
CPA ap,rsvod SiP’s dii?1a tM Istiflu p.rIo . Tb. ..closere r. filly
tM latin. co I1saci peltals.
We sprsclate ys.r .ritl aad aislitiac. sad hot ferwirl to
mrtl wIta you ou t e sto 9 ss*t •f proca rss tb u.rs It sad
i.ota-o i spilt.
LSgd J. Craig Potter
J. Cr.l Pettir
A sIstaat Adairiltritor
lot Air sad tidlitlol
•1Z (,J8)
Ft e
CONCURQfNCES
Sv’eeoL I .

-------
ENCLOSURE
AUTOMOBILE COATING COMPLIANCE PARAMETERS
TRANSFEI EFFICIENCY
SUMMARY
Actual measured TE will be required for demonstrating compliance with
the SIP’s.
I MPLEMENTAT I ON
I . The SIP deficiency actions will be taken by the EPA in 1987—88
to require those States which allow for consideration of TE in compliance
demonstrations to adopt into their SIP’s an actual TE measurement technique
acceptable to the EPA. This action will occur independent of any joint
effort between the EPA and the MYMA to evaluate TE test methods.
2. The EPA will cooperate with the MVMA to evaluate methods (e.g.
weighing the vehicle body before and after painting it, using a highly
sensitive load cell) to measure actual TE on automobile coating lines on
an expeditious schedule.
INTERIM PROCEDURES
1. The EPA wifl enforce the existing Federally approved SIP’s. There
are a variety of provisions concerning TE in the existing SIP’s. Most
existing SIP’s fall into one of the following categories;
a. Some SIP’s are totally silent on TE. The EPA interprets such
SIP’s as prohibiting the consideration of TE in compliance demonstrations.
A State with Such a SIP may continue to prohibit consideration of TE, or
may submit a SIP revision which specifies a TE baseline and a method for
measuring actual TE. In ozone nonattainment areas, the EPA will consider
such a SIP revision only if it is consistent with the State’s reasonable
further progress demonstration. If the SIP is not revised, then TE cannot
be considered in compliance demonstrations.
b. Some SIP’s mention the possibility of considering TE in compliance
determinations without identifying or incorporating into their emission limits
a TE oasel me. The EPA interprets Such SIP’s as not allowing the considera-
tion of TE and will treat such SIP’s in the same manner as SIP’s which are
totally silent on TE.
c. Some SIP’s allow for the consideration of TE in compliance
demonstrations and explicitly identify or incorporate into their emission
limits a TE baseline, but ao not explicitly state how TE is to be assessed.
The EPA will examine each of these SIP’s individually to determine whether
it currently requires actual measured TE values or whether the TE table in
the automobile coating new source performance standards (NSPS) can be used.

-------
2
2. Because EPA has determined that the table values presented in the
NSPS are a poor method for predicting emissions, 1 the tables will lot be
allowed in demonstrations of compliance with best available control technology
(BACT) or lowest achievable emission rate (LAE ). these demonstrations
must be founded on the actual quantity of VOC that is emitted to the atmosphere.
The TE measurements simillar to either of the in—plant methods that General
Motors has used for nearly a decade would be an acceptable method of making
such demonstrations. The table values 1so will not be allowed to be used
in air quality analyses or attainment demonstrations.
1 The taDles were made a part of trie NSPS as a means of determining ‘best
demonstrated technology” and the TE values assignea as an inducement CO
encourage new and modified facilities to install state—of-the-art spray
equ i pment.

-------
3
VOC CONTENT OF COATINGS
SUMMARY
The EPA Reference Method 24 (RM-24) and formu lation 1 VOC data may be
combined under certain conditions.
IMPLEMENTAl I ON
1. As part of the SIP deficiency actions in 1987—d8, the EPA will
require that States adopt RM-24 with a 1—hour bake as specified in ASTM
2369-81 as the primary method of determining the VOC content of a coating.
2. The EPA would consider SIP revisions that allow combining RM—24
(1—hour bake) and formulation VOC data weighted by actual measured TE
values only if the SIP:
a. Explicitly identifies or incorporates into its emission
limits a TE baseline.
b. Requires consideration of actual measured TE in compliance
demonstrations and specifies the TE test method.
c. Requires sources to demonstrate that their meth 9 d for dis 1 osing
of overspray coating wastes does not generate cure volatiles.’
d. States that when RM-24 and formulation data are combined for
a waterborne coating tnat the interlaboratory precision adjustments in RM-24
are not to be applied to the RM—24 results.
e. Specifies a procedure which would be used to substantiate
formulation VOC aata which differ from RM-24 results by more than 10 percent.
1 The amount of VOC that will evolve if the coating were exposed to the
atmosphere, but never oven—cured. For most coatings, this would be iaentical
to the solvent Content of the as-applied coating.
The combining of RM-24 and formulation VOC data recognizes that cure volatiles
are not generated from oversprayed paint that does not cure. Therefore, trie
source must demonstrate that its waste disposal practices are Consistent with
allowing this credit. For example, if the overspray coating wastes are
heated before disposal in a landfill, it could be inappropriate to permit the
credit.

-------
4
INTERIM PROCEDURES
1.. The EPA will aCCe t a combination of RM—24 (1-hour bake) and formulation
VOC data weighted by actual measured values if:
a. The use of such an alternative method is allowable under the
existing SIP. 3
b. The existing SIP:
(1) Explicitly identifies or incorporates into its emission
limits a TE baseline.
(2) Requires consideration of actual measured TE in compliance
demonstrations.
c. Each source using this alternate method:
(1) Demonstrates that itS method for disposing of overspray
coating wastes does not generate cure volatiles.
(2) Does not apply the interlaboratOry precision adjustments
in RM-24 to RM-24 results for waterborne coatings.
(3) Provides substantiation of formulation VOC data which
differ from RM-24 results by more than 10 percent.
2. The EPA would allow VOC to be determined by a combination of
formulation and RM-24 data weighted by actual TE when demonstrating
compliance with NSPS, BACT, and LAER, but only when actual measured TE is
tO be used throughout the compliance demonstration (i.e., both for TE
itself and tO weight the RM—24 and formulation data) and the conditions
in Items 2c through 2e, above, are met.
3 1n many cases, alternative test methods must be approved by the EPA
as SIP revisions.

-------
5
BOOTH—OVEN SPLIT
S UI4MAR V
The EPA will consider SIP revisions that specify a surrogate test
method as an alternative to stack testing for determining booth oven split.
IMPLEMENTATION
1. As part of the SIP deficiency actions In 1987—88, the EPA will require
States to specify stack testipg as the primary method of determining the
booth-oven split.
2. The EPA will cooperate with MVMA to evaluate surrogate methods for
determining booth-oven split.
3. If an acceptable surrogate method is developed, States could incorporate
it Into the SIP’s as an alternative method along with: (1) guidance on criteria
to be met in demonstrating the need for the use of the surrogate method, and
(2) the required retest frequency.
4. If an acceptable surrogate method is developed, it would then also be
acceptable as an alternative method for determining compliance with the NSPS
and in BACT and LAER compliance demonstrations.
INTERIM PROCEDURES
The EPA will enforce the existing Federally approved SIP’s.

-------
6
AVERAGING METHOD
SUMtIARY
The EPA will consider SIP revisions that allow a daily weighted average
to determine compliance with automobile coating regulations. Requests for
less stringent averaging methods could be made on a case-by—Case basis pursuant
to the TM O’Connor Memo”
IMPLEMENTATION
1. As part of the SIP deficiency actions n 1987— 8, the EPA will
require States to explicitly state the averaging method, if any, in their
SIP’s.
2. The EPA will continue to consider SIP’s which assess compliance with
automobile coating regulations using a daily weighted average of the coatings
used. States could a’so keep or oopt a more stringent averaging method.
3. Any SIP that does not exphcitly state an averaging method will
continue to be interpreted by the EPA as requiring that each individual
coating comply with the regulations.
4. For plants that use basecoat/clearcoat coatings, a straight ar ithmet lc
average of all coatings used would be considered more stringent than a daily
weighted average. A combination oaiiy aritnmetic/aaily weighted avera e 2
would be considered less stringent and would require EPA approval via the
checklist presented in the O’Connor Memo for demonstrating that a less stringent
averaging method is warranted.
INTERIM PRUCEDURES
The EPA will enforce tne existing Federally approved SIP’s.
1 ”Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC Emission Units - SIP Revision
Policy’ Signed by John O’Connorq Actiny Director, OAQPS, on January 21.1, l9 4.
A copy is attacried for your convenience in reviewing the detailed requirements.
2 Aritrimetic averages of (a) colors that dO not receive a clearcoat,
(b) basecoats, and 1c) clearcoats all weighted together by relative use of
coatings in tne three categories.
At tachinent

-------
PN 172-88-05-27—061
UNITED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
‘C,
MAY 2? 1988
on VOC Issues
FROM:
vision (MD—15)
TO: Director Air Division, Regions I—X
Attached are copies of the final Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) guidance document, “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,
Deficiencies, and Deviations.” This document is based on Appendix D of
the proposed post—1987 ozone/carbon monoxide policy in the November 24,
1987 Federal Register . As such, it does not formulate new guidance, but
merely clarifies guidance on volatile organic compound (VOC) issues
identified in Appendix D which may have been ambiguous. The document is
intended to apply in those areas that receive post—1987 TMSIP calls” for
ozone and that should have previously adopted and implemented VOC regula-
tions for stationary sources. It is not intended, however, to be applied
In the expanded areas (i.e., consolidated metropolitan statistical area’s)
that receive post—1987 SIP calls, but have never previously been designated
nonattainment. The Regional Offices should use this guidance package in
identifying deficiencies to be corrected under the first-phase response
to the SIP call (“leveling the playing field ) and prescribing corrections
to those deficiencies.
This guidance package represents a collaborative effort of EPA’s
Regional Offices and other Headquarters staff who participated in a 2—day
workshop at the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards on April 18—19,
1987 to discuss these VOC issues; previous drafts of this document have
also undergone extensive Agency review.
If you have any questions or comments pertaining to this document,
please contact John Silvasi (FTS 629—5666) or David Cole (FTS 629—5497).
- r , ‘ A T¼ ,oO8
GuiOfl” OoCu ’. ’ p . 1 0
MEMORANDUM

-------
2
Attachments
cc: Ron Campbell, OAQPS
David Cole, AQMD
Ted Creekmore, AQMD
Jerry Emison, OAQPS
Jack Farmer, ESD
Tom Helms, AQMD
Howard Hoffman, OGC
Bill Johnson, AQMD
Vishnu Katari, SSCD
Bill Laxton, TSD
Brock Nicholson, AQND
Bill Polgiase, AQMD
Bill Repsher, OECM
David Rochlin, OECM
David Salman, ESD
John Seitz, SSCD
John Silvasi, AQMD
Walker Smith, DOJ
Barry Korb, OPPE

-------
___ PN 172-87—12-10—060
— -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D C 2O 6O
DEC 1 0 1987
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter
Commissioner
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street, S.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Dear Mr. Ledbetter:
This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1987, concerning
the use of potential emissions vs. actual emissions in determining
exemption sizes for volatile organic compound (VOC) regulations in
ozone nonattainment areas. You expressed concern over the Environmental
Protection Agency’s policy of basing the cutoff of 3 pounds per hour,
15 pounds per day for some VOC regulations in long-term problem areas
on potential emissions and requested an explanation as to the benefits
from this requirement.
As you mentioned in your letter, this policy is based on a recent
conference call between the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
andseveral R ginnal Offices, I have enclosed a copy of a memorandum
dated Wovember 4, 1987, confirming that the 3 pounds per hour, 15 pounds
per day emission limit cutoff for certain control techniques guidelines
(CTG’s) for VOC sources should be based on potential emissions before
control.
The reason for determining that the cutoff be based on potential
rather than actual e nissions is our dasjre for standardization of this
r’aquiranent by regulatory agencies; the need to provide effective
g’i’dance to industry; and to ensure that the determination of whether a
sour:a is subject to a regulation s clear, consistent, aid raproducible.
The origin 3F th2 3 pounds per hour, 15 pounds p?r Jay exemption dates
o ti Los ngeies Cointj, California, R i1 35 (adopted Julj 23,
1036) as c tc-1 lii o r I1e 1orandJ, of June 25, 1987, (copy eflclosed). *
D2t r.1li Lion Oc he actial nission ro’i ‘ any source categories is
ii )eCa.JS operations a nanv sourc s vary ror’i nay to day.
ilav States’ oeriii 5:’S ems requi r ? tnat c:ie ot,ner or ooerator applying
a p r iit :)ase an a plicatio i on the maxirnun or potential e:fllssiois
that nay be expected from tie equipment or facilizy. In riany ag ncies,
t 12s stlnated e.niss ions are also c3isid red in d v loping projected
m5Siofl inventories from iriici control strategies are Jev oped.
‘72- 8-O7 o ,
s P ’ /1z- 7-ec ,-z;-6 f

-------
2
The use of potential emissions rather than actual e nissions is
important not only in permit systems but it also provides a basis for
effective enforcement operations. Potential emissions based on design
capacity or maximum anticipated emissions provide a quantifiable basis
for determining, with a high degree of certainty, if the source is exenpt
from control or is in fact subject to regulation.
Finally, as you are aware, there are a number of source categories
covered by our CTGs for which the above-noted ex nption would not apply,
i.e., those source categories with equioment and/or work practice standards
instead of emission limits. Examples of these source categories are
floating and fixed—roof tanks, cold-cleaner degreasers, and Stage I
service station tanks. Emissions from source categories such as these
may be less than 3 pounds per hour, 15 pounds per day, but because of the
large number of these small sources, control is required to reduce area ide
emi ssions.
In conclusion, during future ozone planning activities, one of our
major objectives is to provide regulatory certainty, clarity, and national
consistency in the way stationary source VOC regulations are developed and
implemented. This would necessitate the use of a consistent basis for
determining emissions, i.e., potential emissions.
I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this
information ,ill be helpful to you.
Si ncerely,
Lee U 0
I.ee M. Thomas
ci os j r

-------
IC SP4? PN 172-87-09—11-059
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SEP 11 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Geographic Applicability of Clean A Act Sanctions
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Direc
Office of Air Quality 1 nning and Standards (MD—la)
TO: William B. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region VI
This is in response to your August 10, 1987, memorandum
concerning efforts to encourage Texas to expand the ozone State
implementation plan (SIP) planning area around Dallas/Fort Worth to
include several nearby counties which are not designated nonattainment
(for ozone). You mentioned that Texas is reluctant to include these
other counties for fear that failure by one or more of the counties in
the area to adequately control volatile organic compounds or nitrogen
oxides may cause sanctions to be imposed on all of the counties.
One of the keys to addressing the fear of “blanket” sanctions is in
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) approach to dealing with
multicounty areas where some but not all of the counties do, in good
faith, carry out the planning process and implement the plan. To date,
the EPA has imposed funding sanctions on only those counties in an area
which have failed to fulfill their obligations. An example of this
discretionary application of funding sanctions is the Cincinnati-Northern
Kentucky nonattainment area which includes four counties in Ohio and
three counties in Northern Kentucky. Two of the counties in Northern
Kentucky have received highway and sewage treatment grant funding sanctions
for their failure to proceed with a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
program. The other counties in Ohio and Kentucky did not receive sanctions
because they followed through with their planning obligations.
In the case of those sanctions which involve restrictions on
construction of new sources, it has been EPA’s position that both section
llO(a)(2)(I) and section 173(4) apply only in designated nonattainment
areas. Thus, under this position, unless the section 107 designation
status of the other counties in the Dallas/Fort Worth area changes, only
Dallas and Tarrant Counties can be affected by a construction moratorium.
As with funding sanctions, the construction ban can be applied in an area
on a County-by—County basis.

-------
2
With these thoughts in mind, the following discussion responds to
the questions in your memorandum in the order in which they were asked:
1. No, the fringe counties which are not designated nonattainrnent
would not automatically be subject to sanctions for failures
occurring outside their jurisdiction.
2. It is my understanding that the Agency will issue SIP calls
to all of the counties in the Dallas/Fort Worth consolidated
metropolitan statistical area. The funding sanctions available
under sections 176(b) and 316 are not restricted to areas
designated nonattainment under section 107 and, therefore,
could be imposed on those fringe counties which fail to respond
adequately to a SIP call. In addition, if EPA did not issue
SIP calls to those fringe counties but the State included them
in the SIP planning area, and EPA approved the SIP, the fringe
counties could become subject to sections 176(b) and 316 sanctions
upon a finding that the plan was not being carried out.
3. If the situation warrants, sanctions may be applied to individual
counties. EPA, however, will base any decision concerning
sanctions, including the issue of geographic applicability,
on a review of the plan as a whole.
4. It is EPA’s position that the Clean Air Act does not define
failure to attain air quality standards as a basis for imposing
sanctions. Therefore, the answer to the question as posed is
that none of the counties in the planning area would be subject
to sanctions for failing to attain by the SIP attainment date.
In addition to the above questions, you also asked that we “revisit”
EPA’s current position, regarding designation of areas pursuant to section
107, i.e., that EPA cannot initiate such designations without a request
to do so from the State. I will be happy to reopen the dialogue with the
Office of General Counsel on this issue; however, please understand that
there are legal and administrative issues involved which will take some
time to resolve.
I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this
information will help to allay any concerns Texas may have about expanding
the Dallas/Fort Worth planning area.
cc: D. Clay
D. Tyler
F. Blake

-------
PN 172—86-09-29-058
29 SEP 1 36
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Seasonal VOC Controls
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Bruce Miller, Acting Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
In accordance with our telephone conversation of September 15, 1986,
this will confirm our discussion on seasonal control of volatile organic
compounds (VOC’s).
Current policy dictates that seasonal control of VOC emissions is
not appropriate for EPA’s ozone control program. An exception to this
policy was allowed for gas—fired afterburners and this was allowed only
because of the Nation’s continuing need to conserve energy resources in
view of the early 1970’s oil crisis. (See attached memorandum dated
December 1, 1980.) p ,.., a1z_ _I..cs 3 J
This policy has not been extended to other VOC source categories
except for the use of cutback asphalt during periods when the temperature
is below 50°F or during winter months. This seasonal exemption for cutback
asphalt was necessitated because the practical considerations of cold weather.
(See attached memorandum dated December 19, 1978.)
With this background in mind, it is not EPA’s intent to provide any
further seasonal relaxations to this policy by either allowing source cate-
gories to temporarily relax SIP requirements (emissions limits) or extend
averaging times during seasonal periods for compliance purposes. Further,
seasonal relaxations are not consistent with EPA’s toxic control efforts.
It is hoped that this will meet your present need. If you have any
questions, please contact me.
Attachments
cc: Steve Hitte. SSCD Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
John Rasnic, SSCD VOC Contact, Regions I-X
OAQPS:CPDD:CP OB:TGS:MD—15:BPo lgIase: lferrell:629—S516:9/17/8b
Disk 5, Doc. 41

-------
IMi.) c (
DEC 1 1B78
: c : ,sphalt — Acc ptnb1e TIACT Kegci tion
- 7
c ’” : rd C . Rhoads, Director/’ —6 ,‘ : —.
Control Programs Development Division AIR
o DirectOr , Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
A number of issues have arisen concerning the Cutback Asphalt
Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) and the exemptions that are appropriate
f3r that CTG category. While it is late in the SIP revision process, I
believe that it is still in order to clarify the issue. This memo is
intended for that purpose.
To illustrate the exemptions issue, attached is a sample regulation
fcr li tinS the use of cutback asphalt in road paving and maintenance
cperations. The regulation is considered con iscenL with the CTG document
and, therefore, an approvable RACT regulation. It should not he construed
as a binding requirement on the States to adopt this sar pl .
The degree of use of emulsified asphalt varies widely across the
nation decending on factors such as the availabilitY of competent emulsified
as;halt nanufacturers nd the experience and stablished policies of
h;; .; y engineers. Even though emulsifiec asphalt tcc.hnology is av .iT 5k,
;t r ’ay take an extended period of time for certe n States with limited
cr no experience with emulsified asphalt to pha its use into the
States’ Mgh ay paving and maintenance programs. P. trar -itiOfl period
be necessary for manufacturers to gear up to producing the various
e iisicns, highway engineers to obtain specifications ani data applicable
to their climatic conditions, equipment operators to be trained, and
possible governmental issues to be resolved. In other words, a reasonable
transition period from cutback to emulsified asphalt for one State rn y
be unreasonable, or even impossible, for another State. Regional Offices
sr.ould recognize that the time periods for compliance with regulations
limiting use of cutback asphalt will justifiably vary from State to
State. The compliance date suggested by the Asphalt Institute is June 1, 1980.
There are three specific problems associated with emulsified asphalt
that are common to most States. These are:

-------
1. Cannot be stockpiled for extended periods of tima.
2. Limited experience with use as a penetrating pri CO it.
3. Cannot be used during cold :eather.
Cutbeck sphalts and emulsions substituted far cutback. are used
e :i-er as sprayed liquids or as binder in a patch mix. The patch mix is
a nt tureof the asphalt binder and an aggregate and is used for filling
potholes. Characteristically, the patch mix is stockpiled for periods
of from several months to a year. Current emulsions cannot be used in
such a stockpiled mix unless a solvent is added to keep the emulsion
from setting up. Emulsified asphalt in a liquid state can only be
stored for up to four weeks and then only in heated or insulated containers
preferably with some type of agitation. Liquid emulsions, however,
should be available on short notice alleviating the problem of long-life
stockpiling. The example regulation contains provisions for use of
cutback asphalt where it can be demonstrated that long—life stoCkpi1 g
is recessary. Emulsion manufacturers are currently working on em lsjons
the: can be stockpiled for longer periods of time.
The cutback asphalts used for prir’e coats are low viscosity i th
high diluer 1 t contents. There is, therefore, a high degree of VOC evapora--
tion from priming operations. At least one manufacturer makes a strong
claim to having satisfactorily solved the problem of getting good penetra-
tion iith an emulsified asphalt. Until such time as this or other
pri ing emulsions are proven acceptable to users, an exemption for prime
coats r y be necessary and will be approvable. Fortunately, pri.mc t
are Lsed toprepare soil for r ad Co tr on- which- will m sf
—likely -occur in rural areas. In general, priming is not necessary for
city streets, driveways, and parking lots.
Er ulsifjed asphalt does not set up properly at temperatures below
E’ F. If roadway repair is necessary during colder oeriods, cutback
asphalt must be used. States may specify months during the year when
cutback asphalt may be used. These months should include the time of
the year when meteorological conditions are such that temperatures do
r.ot linger above 5Q0 F for periods of time adequate for emulsified
asphalt application and setting. These exenrpted periods will coincide
-ith the nonoxjdant season and will, of course, vary nationwide.
The fourth exemption in the example regulation is in response to
the fact that some cutback asphalts apparently do not set up by V0
evaporation. These are the very high viscosity cutbacks which are
heated during use and set up simply by cooling off. If there are no VOC

-------
there s no reason to prohibit th use 01 thc.5 cutbacks for
r urp35eS of PJ CT. Thus, if a user can demonstrate throu;h thenu1 turar3
dat. that no voc emissions will occur, then the cutback r v be used at
any time.
In sc a instances, manufacturers are adding solvent to emulsions to
r ro ’ the p}’vsiC proo?rtiOS. If such an em lsio cei b u d in
place 07 a ct.itba k, an the emuls on contains less soR’e t tnan the
replaced cutback, States may wish to allow the emulsior; as an interim
mea ure until a switch can be made to a straight emulsion which contains
no solvent.
It is important to note that there may be other unique problems
that are not discussed in this memo. Since RACT is a case—by-case
determinatiofl,theSe should be discussed at the State level arid exemptions
allowed as necessary. Please advise me if you do encounter any additional
requests for exemptions beyond those described in this memo.
Finally, the figures in the control techniques gu de]ine document
for calculating \‘OC e nissions fro cutback asphalt t,ere based on an
average solvent content of 35%. Information will be sent at a later
date for more accurately c.alculatiri cmission rates for the various
cutbacks.
in su i1ary, the attached sample regulation can be considcred RACT
for controlling use of cutback asphalt under the conditions specified
above concerning the exemptions. In keeping with our goal to achieve
consistency among State regulations, States should be en:ourag d but not
required to follow thi2 ple as acui cutback
asphalt regulation. - - .. - - - ..- .- -.
If you have any questions, pl se contact Ro;er Pc. ?li at 629— .
—-I /
Attachn ent
cc: t:. Barber

-------
EXA?•:PLE RACT REGULATIOt
CUTBACK ASPKP .LT
1. Definitions:
As _ phalt : The dark—brown to black c rnen atious na:erial (solid,
se isoljd, or liquid in consistency) of ;hich the mair constitu ts are
bitLr n5 which occur naturally or as a residue of petroleum refining.
Cutback Asphalt : Any asphalt hich has been liquified by blending
with petroleum solvents (diluents) or, in the case of some slow cure
asphalts (road oils), ‘ hich have been produced directly from the distilla-
tion of petroleum.
f netratina Prime Coat : An application of low-viscosity liquid
asphalt to an absorbent surface in order to prepare it for pavin; wi:
en asphalt Concrete.
2. Regulation:
(a) This regulation applies to the use of asphalt in h ;h ; y
paving and maintenance operations.
(b) After June 1, l98O no person shall cause, allow, or permit
the sale, offering for sale, use, or application of cutback asphalt nr
an e ulsified asphalt ca taining p trbleL’ sblven s1di1u n s) e cep
as provided below:
(1) Where the use or application com-e :es on or after ( rurth o
any year and such use or application is completed by ( rnonth ) of the
TOli j g year;
(2) Where long—life (longer than 1 month) stockpile storage is
necessary;
(3) Where the asphalt is to be used solely as a penetrating prime
coat; or
(4) Where the user can demonstrate that there are no emissions of -
organic compounds from the asphalt under conditior.s of normal use.
*
Ti s d tc should be neç ti ted on a Stat:-sp:cific b: i .

-------
PN 172—86-01—09-057
,(O
___ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
a, 4
JAN 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of CTG RACT Recommendations for
High-Density Polyethylene, o ypropy Q, and Polystyrene
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Directo
Control Programs Developm t Di4 sion (MD—is)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I—X
It has been brought to my attention that several Regional Offices
have asked the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Emission
Standards and Engineering Division) for clarification with regard to
reasonably available control technology (RACT) recommendations cited on
page 4—1 of the control technique guideline (CTG) document for TM The Control
of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Manufacture of High—Density
Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins,” (EPA—450/3—83—008 ).
The following summarizes questions raised and EPA responses. All
figure numbers and page numbers refer to the CTG document.
Q: For polypropylene plants using liquid phase processes, does the
98 weight percent reduction or reduction to 20 ppii of continuous
VOC emissions recommendation apply to the slurry vacuum/filter
systeii vent (stream E in Table 2-3)? This stream is not listed
on page 4—1.
A: Yes. The slurry vacuum/filter system vent stream is part of the
material recovery section and should have been specifically
listed with the other three streams in the material recovery
section on page 4—1.
Q: For the high—density polyethylene plants using liquid phase
slurry processes, does the 98 weight percent reduction or
reduction to 20 ppii of continuous voc emissions recommendation
apply to the VOC emissions from the flash tank at plants that do
not incorporate ethylene recycle?

-------
—2-
A: yes. This stream can be effectively controlled and, a ii ..t cJ on
page 2—16, is already often sent to boilers for heat recovery.
Q: For polystyrene p1a ts using contiiiucw prccesses, does the
emission limit apply to both str arns in tr 1 e material recovery
section (i.e., streAm B, the d cslatilizer condenser vent ard
stream C, the styr ne recovery unit condenser vent as shown in
Figure 2-3)?
: Yes. The term “product devolatilizer syste , M which is used on
page 4—1 in the RACT recomendations, refers to both streams.
Should you have any qu stlons concerning this memo, please contact
Bill Poiglase (FTS 629—5516) or Bill Johnson (FTS 629—5605).
CC: Regional Administrator, Regions I—X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
YOC Regulatory Contacts, Regions —X
VOC Enforcement Contacts ‘ e;i’ ns 1—X
.. ampbeli
6. Fmison
• 1 1rns
B. S eigerwa
B. Johnson
J. Berry
S. Wyatt
3. Farme-

-------
PM 172-87-09-09-055
Sra)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
SEP 9 1987
MEMORANOUM
SUBJECT. Alternative Compliance for a ic Art ( T
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Developm 1V 1 fl (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air Division, Regions I-X
As an outgrowth of comments on simplifying recordkeeping and determining
compliance in the flexographic and packaging rotogravure printing industries,
the Agency has decided to accept an emission limit of 0.5 lb of volatile
organic compound (VOC) per pound of solids in the ink as alternative
emission limit which is essentially equivalent to the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) level recommended in the graphic arts control
technique guideline (CTG), “Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From
Existing Sources Volume VIII: Graphic Arts, Rotogravure, and Flexography,’
EPA-450/2-78-033, December 1978. A source-specific State implementation
plan (SIP) revision for a graphic arts facility which is based on this
equivalent alternative RACT emission limit will be considered valid and
will be expeditiously reviewed.
Rather than applying this limit on a source-specific basis, a State
may wish to revise its SIP to apply this alternative limit to all
affected sources so that there will be no need for a source-specific SIP
revision for each particular industrial facility. Such an approach will
be acceptable to EPA.
However, States are not required to revise SIP’s and adopt the 0.5 lb
VOC/ib solids RACT equivalent. The EPA still considers the RACT limitations
recommended in ttie CTG and already incorporated into most SIP’S to be
valid and does not propose to prohibit their use. If a State chooses to
revise its SIP to apply the 0.5 lb VOC/Ib solids RACT equivalent to all
sources, this should be as an alternative in addition to, rather than as a
replacement for, the RACT limitations recommended in the CTG and already
incorporated into most SIP’s.
The 0.5 lb VOC/lb solids limit includes all solvent added to the ink:
solvent in purchased ink, solvent added to cut the ink to achieve desired
press viscosity, and solvent added to ink on the press to maintain viscosity
during the press run. Method 24 test procedures and procedures to account
for thinning solvent as specified in “Procedures for Certifying Quantity
of Volatile Organic Compounds by Paint, Ink, and Other Coatings”, EPA
450/3—84—019, must govern in determining VOC compliance of an ink in an
enforcement situation.

-------
2
This limit applies to flexographic printing and packaging rotogravure
printing presses. Publication rotogravure presses are not covered by
this guidance.
cc: Regional Mministrator, Regions I-X
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Ron Campbell
Gerald Emison
B. J. Steigerwald

-------
PN 172-87-06-25_054
- vô
S7 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Plannuig and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
qt
25 JUN 1987
PEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Emission Cut—Off for Control Techniques Guidelines
Volatile Organic Compound Sources
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD—15)
TO: Carl M. Walter, Chief
Air Branch, Region VII
Your region has had questions about the origin of the 15 lb./day or
3 lb./hour cut—off frequently found in volatile organic compound (VOC)
regulations, especially for sources covered by a control techniques guide-
line (CTG). The State of Missouri also contacted us about it. The
following discussion provides some background information:
The 15 lb./day limit first appeared in 1966 in Rule 66 which was
adopted by Los Angeles County. This cut-off was subsequently adopted by
Federal Regulations. 40 C.F.R. Part 51 — Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, Appendix B — Examples of
Emission Limitations Attainable with Reasonably Available Technology was
first published in the Federal Register November 25, 1971. The section
of Appendix B on organic solvents says “The emission of organic compounds
of more than 3 pounds per hour or 15 pounds per day from any equipment can
be reduced by at least 85 percent.”
After the first CTG’s were issued, the Envirorvnental Protection
Agency issued model regulations for volatile organic reasonable available
control technology categories. This guidance appeared in April 1978, is a
document entitled uRegulatory Guidance for Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from 15 Categories of Stationary Sources,
EPA_905/2_78_00l.u The applicability section of the model regulations
states these regulations will not apply to sources whose emission of
volatile organic compounds are not more than 15 lbs. in any one day or
more than 3 lbs. in any one hours.
The 15 lb./day cut-off is a well established precedent as the above
examples show (copies of the docunents are attached). We continue to
recommend it as an evaluation criteria as you review VOC regulations for
ozone SIP actions.

-------
2
If you have any other questions please contact me.
Attact ents
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I—X
Regional VOC contacts
John Rasnic

-------
PN 172-86-10-30-053
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S Office of Air Quality Plann:rig arid Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
--. OCT C 1996
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Inclusion of Clean—up Solvents in Det.ernlinin9 Applicability
to the 100-Ton Per Year n-CTG Requirements
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD—15)
TO: Cyntnia Greene
Air Programs Branch, Region I
This is in response to your memorandizri of tober 1, 1986, addressed
to £rock N c c1scn co’ cerning the 1ncius on of clean—up solvents n
cetermining the 100-ton per year non—CTG requirements.
It is our opinion that clean—up solvents should be included in the
c iculatio’i cf non-CTG source total emissions in order to determine if it
is a ICO-tor per year source. However, f it can be doc nented znat
clean—up solvents are collected and disposed of in a manner which prevents
trie r evaooratlon to the atmosphere, they can be excluded from the caicu—
ation (see EPA-456 1 ’2-79-004, p. 30, 31, and 92 attached).
Perhaps some misunderstanding has occurred as a result of the attached
Janes C. Berry me noranoums of June 5, 1984, and October 20, 1983. As
statec tie J re 5, 98 , m noranaum, clean-up solvent should not be
lnc uceo wPen GeZerm n1ny if an in is in compliance with the CTG emission
limit for :h: çrap c arts sou ce cateyory. D’iution and make-up solvent
adce to z e nk w uia oe ncluded in Getermining if the ink is in compliance
with the enii sion hmit.
1: is hoped t a: :nis ll meet your present need. If you have any
uestions, please coitact Brock Nicholson or Bill Polglase (FIS 629-5526).
At t a c hr’i en t s
cc: John Rasnic, SSCD Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Steve Hitte, SSCD VOC Regulatory Contact, Regions I-X
Laxmi Kesari, SSCD VOC Enforcement Contact, Regions I-X
NOTE: Attachments to this memorandum are not
included in the Policy and Guidance Notebook.

-------
PN 172-86-02-28-052
Sl qp
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
I c .
4 pqQ
2 8 FEB 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Responses to Four VOC Issues Raised by the Regional
Offices and Department of Justice
FROM: Gerald A.
Office of Aircptil 4 ’ 1 * Tg and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Region IV and VI
ir and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, Viii and X
In the attachments, i am transmitting responses to four
VOC issues identified by the Regional Offices and DOJ through
the VOC Compliance Workgroup. As you may know, absence of
policy addressing these VOC issues was being presented as an
impediment to Regional and State efforts in returning VOC
violators to compliance.
On June 27, 1985, the first draft of the attached responses,
as well as draft responses to many other VOC issues, were
circulated for comment. On August 21 and 22, various Regional
and Headquarters representatives met to discuss these first
drafts. A second draft of each issue was circulated to the
Regional Offices under two separate memoranda, dated October 25
and December 12. The attached responses incorporate the
various comments received.

-------
—2—
Under previous correspondence issued January 31, 1986
from SSCD and January 17, 1986 from OECM, four other responses
have been transmitted to you. Therefore, eight issues have
been addressed to date. Many of the remaining proposed
responses raise significant policy issues which need to he
addressed. We are working to expedite these responses and to
assure any necessary coordination with the work of the Ozone
Task Force.
I appreciate the efforts of the Regions in commenting on
the various drafts of the attached four issues and hope that
you find them helpful in resolving some of the issues concern-
ing VOC enforcement.
Attachments
cc: VOC Compliance Workgroup
Regional Counsel, Regions I—X

-------
Issue
What is the Agency’s enforcement response for sources
subject to t pending bubbles, specifically for bubbles in areas
lacking an approved attainment demonstration?
Response
The June 28, 1984 guidance on “timely and appropriate”
enforcement response for significant air violators addressed
the situation of timely enforcement for sources subject to
SIP revisions. The guidance states that EPA will routinely
issue NOVs, if not already issued, 120 days following the
violation (or shortly after) if the violation is not resolved
in accordance with the guidance. Follow up to the NOV is
warranted unless EPA determines, in consultation with the
State, that continued deferral to the State activity will
produce timely compliance.
Where the State activity is a SIP revision (bubbles are
SIP revisions), the revision must, by day 120, at least have
been scheduled for a State hearing and EPA staff—level review
shows it likely to be approved. Where the SIP revision is
unlikely to be approved, EPA is obligated under the “timely
and appropriate” guidance to issue a NOV on day 120 and
follow up with its own enforcement action as appropriate.
Sources subject to SIP revisions in areas that are
classified as attainment are not subject to the “timely and
appropriate” guidance unless a specific State—EPA agreement
addresses such sources. However, such sources remain subject
to enforcement by EPA. The criteria for deferral outlined in
the “timely and appropriate” guidance may be useful for
addressing such Situations even though the timelines may not
be applicable.
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
2 8 FEB 1955
Date Signed

-------
2
Issue : ‘re there any site—specific RACT limits
being set?
Response: Site-specific RACT determinations are required
for > 100 T/yr stationary sources not covered by a CIG where
(1) sources are located in urbanized areas that did not attain
by 1982 and (2) for urbanized areas that have requested an
extension until 1987. In addition, case-by-case RACT determina-
tions are allowable where the CTG suggested limit has been
found to be technologically or economically Infeasible. These
case—by-case RACT determinations must be approved by EPA as
source—specific SIP revisions.
Site-specific RACT determinations have been for a number
of > 100 T/yr stationary source categories not covered by
CTGs. Examples of this are Region IV RACT determinations
for aluminum foil plants, woodworking plants, etc. Region I
reportedly is making RACT determinations for a large number of
sources. For example, more than 30 site-specific non-CTG
RACT determinations in the State of Massachusetts will be
submitted as SIP revisions to EPA in the near future. Also,
a number of case-by-case RACT determinations have been made
for CT site—specific sources In Massachusetts in the past.
Case-by-case RACT determinations are allowable under EPA
policy for both CTG and non-CTG source categories where
appropri ate.
The VOC RACT Clearinghouse is available and should be
used for ensuring Regional consistency in RACT determinations
for similar site-specific source categories.
rector
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
28 FE6

-------
3
Issue
What baseline year should be used for determining VOC
percent emissions reductions as per State SIP regulations?
Re s p0 n S e
o There is no one particular year that can be considered
to be the baseline year for compliance purposes for all source
categories. The baseline year is generally considered to be
the effective date of the emission control regulation for the
source category.
o The SIP itself, however, should be checked to determine
if it contains language affecting baseline year determinations.
It is possible that in approving the SIP either EPA or the State
commented on this issue, thus providing guidance to sources.
If there is no contrary guidance in the SIP, the general rule
stated above should take effect.
o The stated issue and response relate to individual source
compliance rather than to a SIP planning baseline or emissions
trading issue. SIP baselines are defined in current policy and
the issue of baselines relative to trading is covered in the
various Agency policy documents on trading.
o The issue is only applicable to “percent reduction”
types of regulations. A regulation based strictly on “VOC
content” (e.g., lbs VOC/gal coating or percent solvent regula-
tions, etc.) or add—on control equipment percent requirements,
would not require a baseline date as compliance would be based
only on a comparison against the SIP emission limits.
o The percent reduction” requirement applies to the emis-
sion rate as expressed in terms of VOC content, not to total VOC
emissions. That is, the percent reduction applies against the
pre—control coatings/inks formulations, not to the emissions
in mass per unit of time. This is consistent with the intent
of the CTG’S. The pre—control coatings/inks formulations used
as the baseline in determining percent reductions must be repre-
sentative of the coatings/inks in use at the time the regulation
became effective.
Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
4,r
Date Signed

-------
14
ISSUE
Is ar exemption for use of incinerators in non—ozone
season appropriate? How can we justify suing sources for
failure to utilize controls during non—ozone season in SIPS
where there is no exemption?
RESPONSE
The origin of the policy on seasonal controls began when
EPA issued guidance on July 28, 1976 which authorized proce-
dures for the approval of SIP revisions allowing seasonal
operation of certain gas—fired afterburners. Such revisions
could be accomplished without a detailed, time—consuming
analysis of air quality impact so long as the seasonal shutdown
period was consistent with that delineated in a staff study
( Oxidant Air Quality and Meteorology, February 6, 1976) and if
the existing air quality showed no past violations in the months
during which the afterburners were shut down.
On December 1, 1980, in a memorandum to the Regional Offices
titled Revised Seasonal Afterburner Policy (attachment 1), EPA
further stated that any plan revision which provided for after-
burner shutdown in the period of November through March outside
of southern California and the Gulf Coast should be proposed for
approval.
It is important to note that the policy applies to gas—fired
afterburners installed to control emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) for the purpose of reducing ambient ozone con-
centrations. It does not apply to flares (which do not use natural
gas as an auxiliary fuel), VOCs vented to boilers, afterburners
operated principally for odor control, or afterburners operated to
control toxic or hazardous substances. It is also important to
note that the policy on seasonal control of afterbu ners can only
be implemented through the SIP process. The EPA does not have a
general exemption regarding seasonal controls of VOC gas—fired
afterburners.
A second category of sources to which seasonal controls can
be applied through the SIP process are cutback asphalt facilities.
In some SIPs, control of these facilities is required only during
the summer months.
In 1984, EPA, through the Office of Air and Radiation con-
sidered whether to expand the categories of sources to which such
seasonal policies could apply. ( Seasonal Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Control and Phillips Petroleum,u dated September
21, 1984 (attachment 2)) The decision was made not to expand
the scope of the policy primarily because:
— Only a relatively small additional cost savings could
be expected from any expansion of the policy.

-------
4
Dispersion Modeling
Q: Are dispersion models required for control strategy
demonstrations or can rollback or a proportional model
approach be used?
A: Dispersion models are required for analysis of both areawide
and hotspot control strategy demonstrations with two
exceptions. A modified rollback or proportional model
approach may be applied for urban areawide control strategy
demonstrations if: (1) results from Co screening or ambient
measurement techniques applied in an urban area indicate CO
levels clearly below the CO NAAQS and CO levels are expected
to remain below the CO NAAQS, or (2) projection information
demonstrates that the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
will provide the needed CO reductions. Either the RAM Model
or Urban Airshed Model is appropriate for dispersion
modeling of the areawide component of control strategy
demonstrations. The recommended modeling technique for
determining the hot spot component for control strategy
demonstrations is Worksheet 2 of Volume 9 (Revised).
Q: Under what conditions is a Co SIP areawide emissions
inventory required for an MSA/CMSA with no monitored Co
NAAQS violations?
A: There are two cases for which CO areawide emissions
inventories should be developed for areas not monitoring
violations of the CO NAAQS. In the first case, the EPA
Regional Office may determine that the CO monitoring network
in the MSA/CMSA is inadequate for measuring high CO
concentrations. A CO areawide emissions inventory is
required in order to apply dispersion modeling and determine
whether CO exceedances in the MSA/CMSA are possible.
In the second case, a Co areawide emissions inventory is
required for a State required to meet the maintenance
provisions of the post—1987 policy as part of a
redesignation request. As proposed, the policy requires the
State to demonstrate that the attainment inventory will be
maintained for a period of 10 years. For CO, the proposed
policy defines an attainment inventory as the lowest annual
emission level during the 2-year period in which no ambient
violations were recorded. The attainment inventory in areas
which have areawide CO problems applies to the entire
MSA/C?.ISA. For areas which have hotspot problems, smaller
areas (after EPA approval) may be used in determining the
attainment inventory. At a later date, EPA will provide
further guidance on projecting emissions and other aspects
of developing a maintenance plan. -

-------
Post-1987 Ozone/CO Policy
Q: When will the post—1987 policy be completed? Will the
comments on the proposed policy be addressed at that time?
A: EPA staff expects to brief the incoming EPA management on the
proposed policy, the nature of the major issues, and options
for addressing those issues. Depending on EPA priorities and
Congressional activity, the policy may be finalized by the end
of the summer of 1989. The comments on the proposed policy
will be addressed with final action.
Q: Nov should States approach SIP preparation in light of: (1)
the policy has not been finalized, and (2) Congress has not
amended the Clean Air Act?
A: States have been asked to direct resources toward the
following activities: (1) correct deficiencies in current
regulations, according to guidance issued in May 1988; and
(2) prepare base year inventories according to guidance
received at emission inventory workshops in October and
November 1988. The remaining requirements will be established
when the post-1987 policy is finalized.
Q: What is the purpose of reasonable further progress (RFP)
reporting under the proposed policy?
A: The purpose of RFP reporting is twofold: (1) annual tracking
of the effects of control strategy implementation on specific
sources and source categories, and (2) periodic (every 3
years) tracking of the effects of control strategy
implementation on the total emissions inventory to assess
progress toward attainment and, where appropriate, the annual
reduction target. The document entitled Revised Guidance for
Trac jng RFP in Ozone Control Programs , EPA/OAQPS/MDAD,
September 1989, provides details on RFP reporting under the
proposed policy
Q: Should ambient trends be tracked under the revised RFP
reporting requirements?
A: Yes. The Revised Guidance for Tracking RFP in Ozone Control
Programs (page 5) includes the statement that “tracking of
air quality trends is required to indicate the effect that
emission reductions are having toward achieving the ambient
ozone standard.”
Q: Are separate RFP reports required for VOC, CO, and NO, or can
the three pollutants be tracked in the same report?

-------
— Exposure to toxic emissions might increase.
— Pursuing such an initiative could disrupt VOC control
efforts at a time of uncertain implementation.
— Scarce resources might have to be diverted from current
programs to prepare the necessary administrative actions.
— The control flexibility in the program already available
might be jeopardized since Section 302(K) of the Clean
Air Act, passed subsequent to EPA’S seasonal afterburner
policy, requires controls on a Ncontinuous basis.R
It was for the above reasons that the recommendation was made
to implement the existing policy as presently written.
Thus, the policy concerning seasonal control of afterburners
can be implemented only if a State submits, and EPA approves, a SIP
provision providing for seasonal operation. In the absence of such
a provision, sources are obligated under State and federal law to
continuously operate afterburners as necessary to meet applicable
emission limits. EPA expects sources to meet their legal obliga-
tions, and is directed by Sections 113 and 120 of the Clean Air Act
to take corrective enforcement action if a source fails to do so.
The justification for enforcing SIP requirements providing for the
continuous operation of afterburners rests with this directive in
the Clean Air Act. SIP standards are initially developed by the
States and can be more stringent than required by the Clean Air Act
and EPA policy. Once federally effective, the SIP requirements are
to be met by sources and enforced by the States and EPA.
Gerald A. Ernison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
2 8 FEC 1986
Date Signed

-------